Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF ABERDEEN DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Ross presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 8 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to City of Aberdeen District Council; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Wednesday 18th February, and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Royal Navy

Mr. Trotter: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in view of the fact that the defence cuts undertaken in 1975 reduce the strength of the Royal Navy to the lowest level since 1895, he will give an assurance that no further cuts are intended to the service.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Frank Judd): As the hon. Member will know, the most significant European Navy within the NATO Alliance, the Royal Navy, possesses more sophisticated technology and packs more punch than it has done throughout its history. We are determined to maintain our force levels and operational effectiveness as declared to NATO last year; any forthcoming economies will therefore certainly not be in the sharp end.

Mr. Trotter: Can the Minister deny that the cuts being made in the Navy will

reduce manpower to its lowest level for 80 years at a time when the potential threat from the ever-growing Soviet Navy is far worse than that which faced us before the Kaiser's War or Hitler's War?

Mr. Judd: In view of the hon. Gentleman's continuing interest in naval affairs, I am sure he will agree that capability is more important than comparison of numbers of personnel. He will also know that in the past year or 18 months there has been a significant story of new equipment for the Navy, including confirmation of the cruiser, Sea Harrier, Sub-Warpoon, Sea Skua and the new special defence force for the North Sea.

Mr. George Rodgers: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is somewhat misleading to refer to defence cuts, because during the next two years expenditure in real terms will increase? Is it not a fact that our contribution to the NATO Alliance is now the highest of any member?

Mr. Judd: As my hon. Friend knows, we plan real cuts in defence expenditure in the future. In our manifesto we said that those cuts must be looked at over a number of years and that we shall achieve a significant reduction in expenditure over a number of years.

USSR Expenditure

Mr. Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the United Kingdom's expenditure on defence in the light of information on the extent and purpose of current USSR expenditure on defence procurement.

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his assessment of the aims of the Soviet Union's current expenditure on defence procurement.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Roy Mason): The improvements being made in the Warsaw Pact's military capability are a continuing concern to the United Kingdom and NATO Governments. I am satisfied, however, that we are making an effective contribution to NATO's collective defences, which are designed to deter outside aggression.

Mr. Hastings: If the Secretary of State is satisfied, he must be unique among those who take an interest in these


matters. Is it not the case that today the Soviet Union spends just about double what the United States spends on defence research and more than the whole of the Western world put together? Is that any cause for satisfaction? Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree—though he may not care to say so—that his task today should be not simply to resist cuts but to rebuild our reserves, defence forces and equipment to a level at which they are—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions are a privilege that has been established by custom, but one supplementary question at a time is normally enough. The hon. Gentleman is taking rather a long time.

Mr. Hastings: Finally, does the Secretary of State not think that our defence forces should again be raised to a level at which they are credible to our allies and enemies alike?

Mr. Mason: I do not agree with the figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, he must be aware that NATO's job is to provide sufficient forces, in quantity and quality, to deter. The United Kingdom makes a greater contribution to the Central Front and the Eastern Atlantic than does any other of our Western European allies. As a percentage of GNP our defence expenditure is higher than that of any of our major Western European allies.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Do not Western sources show that NATO is stronger in financial, military, naval and nuclear power than are the Warsaw Pact Powers? In any case, do not both sides have the power to blot out everyone else in existence?

Mr. Mason: The answer to the first part of the question that my hon. Friend posed is "No". It so happens that on the central front the ground forces of the Warsaw Pact powers number at least 150,000 more than those of the NATO Alliance.

Mr. Adley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the recent official Russian complaint to Her Majesty's Government about the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was the first such official complaint since Ribbentrop complained about a speech by Sir Winston Churchill before the war? Does

the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the word "détente" is in danger of becoming a 1970s version of the word "appeasement"? Is it not his duty to awake the nation to the political international realities?

Mr. Mason: It is good to have a public discussion on defence, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman, unlike some of his Suez dreamers, does not believe that there is not, this year, a possibility for genuine détente. We have to watch the extent to which we might harm the possible chances of, first, concluding a satisfactory Salt II agreement and, secondly, concluding a mutual and balanced force reduction, within Europe between the United States of America, the USSR, the Warsaw Pact Powers and the NATO Alliance. We must recognise that the Soviet Union is on test in terms of the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does my right hon. Friend agree that no nation that is economically weak can be militarily strong, and that Her Majesty's Government's first priority must therefore be to put the economy right?

Mr. Mason: Of course, and it is always very difficult, when in government, to try to satisfy the economic needs of the nation and to obtain satisfaction on security. As Secretary of State for Defence, I am satisfied that as far as our country and its contribution to NATO is concerned, we have not prejudiced that effort.

Mr. Goodhew: As the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged today the immense power of the Warsaw Pact countries, and as he did so in the Defence Review and in articles that he has written for the North Atlantic Review, and so on, why does he support the Soviet Union against my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not read the statement. There was no defence of the Soviet Union. I stated that NATO was armed and alert and was ready to deter—but we do not have to provoke.

East-West Relations

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will place


in the Library a copy of the statement he issued on 25th January on East-West relations.

Mr. Mason: I have already done so.

Mr. Hoyle: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Does he not agree that the sabre rattling, the Leader of the Opposition's call for a return to the cold war, and the call for increased defence spending, come rather strangely from a party that is constantly calling for more reductions in Government spending?

Mr. Mason: Yes, and it will be incumbent upon the Opposition, in due course, to let us know in respect of which items they would like expenditure to fall or rise. No doubt there will be ample opportunity for that in the future. However in my statement I wanted clearly to convey the message to those in our country who take matters of defence seriously that Britain cannot go it alone again. The days of Suez have gone. The Suez dreamers below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House, with their reactionary dogma, who are constantly trying to make their party move further to the Right, are not doing defence a service they are doing it a disservice. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I made an appeal to the House yesterday that the Front Benches as well as the Back Benches should realise that Question Time is for questions and answers to the point.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that his silly little statement attacking my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition demeaned both his office and himself? Will he assure the House that in future he will be less worried whether or not the Russians are annoyed and more concerned about the state of British defences?

Mr. Mason: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to his defence post. Long may he remain there. No doubt he will have studied my statement with a great deal of care. There was no defence of the Soviet Union—and never has there been in any of my public utterances. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that I said that the order of the day should be patience, diligence and negotiation,

armed with security, to talk from strength.£

Mr. Hardy: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House of the cuts in defence expenditure that were effected by the previous Conservative Government? Does he recall whether any of the hon. Members who are now making a fuss said anything at that time?

Mr. Mason: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for reminding me that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) was in post at that time. In one calendar year—1973—the Tories cut back defence expenditure by £250 million, long before oil prices had quadrupled, with adverse effects upon the balance of payments and the economy.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Will the Secretary of State now inform the House of the development of his views on the effects on East-West relations of the incursion into Angola of 12,000 lackeys of the Soviet Union?

Mr. Mason: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will await the statement on Angola which will be forthcoming at the end of Question Time.

Civilian Employees

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for reductions in the numbers of civilians employed in his Department.

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what efforts he has made to reduce administrative staff at Ministry and defence establishments and other unnecessary staff in the interests of economy in public expenditure.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): As indicated in the 1975 Statement on Defence Estimates, the number of civilian staff employed in support of the Services will be reduced by 30,000 by 1st April 1979 compared with the strengths on 1st April 1974.

Mr. Lawson: Bearing in mind that nearly 40 per cent. of all civil servants are employed by the Ministry of Defence, will the Minister assure the House that that is where any necessary cuts will be concentrated in the future, and not on our fighting capabilities? Why was this


not done at the time of the last Defence Review?

Mr. Rodgers: I agree that when necessary savings have to be made in defence expenditure we should look very carefully at the support and administrative side of the budget. That is what we have done. There are to be substantial reductions on top of other reductions that were made in the preceding period, between 1971 and 1974. However, we must recognise that even savings of this size involve considerable personal hardship and dislocation, and we should be sympathetic towards those upon whom these reductions may fall.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is it not the case that over the last 10 years the number of desk-bound administrative staff has increased in relation to our fighting and flying forces, and that it is now about to exceed them? Will the Minister pay special attention to reducing Ministry of Defence headquarters staffs and making his economies in that direction?

Mr. Rodgers: I am not sure that my right hon. Friend's historical review is correct, but it is certainly the case that at present we are significantly reducing the ratio between administrators and those involved in support, and the teeth arms. This will involve some reduction in the headquarters staff.

Mr. Burden: As there is to be a reduction in staff of 30,000 civilians, will the Minister tell us whether there are to be any dockyard employees in this reduction and, if so, whether any will be Chatham Dockyard workers?

Mr. Rodgers: No, not arising from the Defence Review. The figures that I have given were those which appeared in the Defence White Paper last year. The hon. Gentleman will remember that there was no suggestion in the White Paper that the dockyards would be affected.

Mr. Dalyell: Has the Minister of State seen the strong statement—understandable, in the view of many of us—from the trade unions to the effect that if these reductions are to take place it really does alter the position about moving defence employees to Glasgow? Has he any comment on that?

Mr. Rodgers: My only comment on what my hon. Friend says is that, while

endorsing the Government's decision to review administrative and support costs, we ought not to minimise the real hardship that this may cause for those who have given a lifetime's work for the Ministry of Defence in one way or another. Equally, it should be recognised that the necessary decisions made by the Government in July 1974, about dispersal, involve a further disruption in the lives and work of many civil servants.

Mr. Onslow: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify this matter? He speaks of 30,000 staff to be axed under the Defence Review of last year. There have been widespread rumours—if not leaks—that there are to be many further cuts as a result of the latest exercise that has been going on. Will he take this opportunity to tell the House at least what he has told the unions, to clarify the point about dockyards, and promise that we shall have the full facts in the forthcoming Defence White Paper, covering all the cuts in prospect?

Mr. Rodgers: I certainly promise that full facts will be forthcoming in the Defence White Paper.

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he hopes to bring the United Kingdom Gross National Produce contribution for defence into line with the Gross National Product contributions of other member countries of the NATO Alliance.

Mr. Mason: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) on 13th January.—[Vol. 903, c. 187.]

Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that the latest figures, published in 1974, show that except for the United States and Portugal, all member countries of NATO are paying very much less of their gross national product than is the United Kingdom? Is he aware that even West Germany, with its strong economy, contributes only 3·6 per cent. of its GNP, in striking contrast to our 5·2 per cent.? Has he no proposals for bringing our contribution into line with those of the other member States?

Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend is correct. He also knows that because of the manifesto commitments in the two General Elections of 1974, we are obliged, progressively, over a period, to bring into line our defence expenditure—expressed as a percentage of GNP—with that of our major European allies. That is what we are doing.

Mr. Powell: How reliable are these international comparisons of GNP?

Mr. Mason: It is difficult to be able to say that they are absolute equations. The right hon. Gentleman knows how difficult it is. However, instead of dealing with defence expenditure comparisons on a per capita basis or on the basis of real levels of defence spending, within NATO we always use the statistic of defence expenditure as a percentage of GNP. That is the best comparison we can make.

Mr. Newens: My right hon. Friend stated that we are seeking to bring our percentage of GNP into line with that of our allies. Is this not arranged over the course of the next 10 years, and does it not mean that in terms of military expenditure, for 10 years we shall be forced to spend a larger percentage of our GNP than our allies? Is this not unacceptable?

Mr. Mason: It is exactly in line with the manifesto commitment. We said that we would save several hundred million pounds progressively over a period, and that is precisely what we are doing. We have to recognise that the GNPs of Britain and some of our Western European allies can change within the time-scale that I am talking about, and therefore it may be achieved more quickly or more slowly.

Mr. Marten: I should like to follow the the question put by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Does the Minister realise that his answer was not very satisfactory? Should it not be perfectly possible, within NATO, to agree a standard form of calculation for defence? After all harmonisation is the fashion, so for goodness sake let us use it.

Mr. Mason: As I have said on many occasions, within the NATO Council the recognised yardstick for defence expenditure is its percentage of GNP. It is on those figures that we base our calculation.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is it not a fact that we would save our country £1·2 billion a year for other and better things if we carried out our election manifesto commitment to reduce our level of GNP to the levels of the other Western European NATO countries?

Mr. Mason: There would be considerable savings if we managed to bring it down fairly quickly. However, my hon. Friend will understand that the problem is that, first, such action would cause great damage to the effectiveness of the Armed Forces and, secondly, it would quickly endanger the jobs of 100,000 people employed in the defence industries who could not be quickly transferred.

Mr. Maker: Is it true that the Secretary of State has given instructions that the Defence White Paper now in draft should be completely revised so that it does not confirm every point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in her recent speech on defence?

Mr. Mason: No, Sir.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current assessment of the military balance between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

Mr. Mason: I refer my hon. Friend to the assessment of the military balance given in the statement on the Defence Estimates 1975 (Cmnd. 5976). The growing strength and capabilities of Warsaw Pact forces continue to be matters of concern to NATO.

Mr. Cook: Has my right hon. Friend received a copy of the annual defence statement by the American Secretary of State for Defence, published a fortnight ago? In that statement Donald Rumsfeld stated that in strategic nuclear forces there is a rough equivalent and that in conventional, military and naval force terms the NATO forces are at least equal to those of the Warsaw Pact? Does not this authoritative analysis place in perspective the quite irresponsible alarmism we have heard from the Opposition benches over the past month?

Mr. Mason: What my hon. Friend has said has a ring of truth. We must not create anxiety within the minds of the members of the alliance by repeating consistently how frightening and awesome


is the growth of Soviet power. The American Secretary of State spelled out the sort of scenario to which my hon. Friend has referred. However, I must point out that although, quantitatively and qualitatively, the NATO allies are alert and can safely deter, the qualitative difference is beginning to change.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The Secretary of State has repeated that the strength of the Warsaw Pact gives cause for concern. Is it his claim that the cuts he has made over the past year and is about to make in the next few weeks have not damaged our contribution to NATO?

Mr. Mason: Some concern has been expressed by NATO about our contribution on the flanks, but there has been no impingement of that concern about our contribution to the central front, to the Eastern Atlantic, and to the preservation of the home base.

Mr. Alan Clark: Would it not be more relevant and more ominous if we related these comparisons to previous years? Does the Secretary of State agree that the increase in the numbers of Soviet tanks, for example, from 13,000 to 19,000 since 1970, is exactly equal to the total strength of the NATO forces deployed in the West? This figure, which is already at the three-to-one norm that the Russians regard as necessary for taking the offensive, if projected over the next five years will give them a superiority of about seven to one.

Mr. Mason: That is all the more reason why the mutual and balanced force reduction talks should succeed. The hon. Gentleman must know that during the latest round the Americans have placed on the negotiating table the tactical nuclear weapons of Western Europe as a bargaining card, in the hope that we can also get a response from the Soviet Union to reduce the tank armies, of which the Soviet Union has a great predominance, in the Warsaw Pact countries.

Mr. Pattie: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the current British contribution to NATO.

Mr. Mason: Yes, Sir. We shall continue to maintain modern and effective

forces to meet our essential commitments to the alliance.

Mr. Pattie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite his protestations, all the evidence suggests that our NATO partners are not satisfied with the level of the current British contribution? If the right hon. Gentleman seeks to claim that our consultations with our NATO partners are genuine, will he tell the House what defence cuts last year were not made as a result of NATO representations?

Mr. Mason: I shall be glad to let the hon. Gentleman and the House know, in the Defence White Paper, the supplementary measures I have been considering arising out of the genuine consultations we had with our NATO allies.

Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what probably causes our allies most consternation is the Conservative Party's obsession with imbecile confrontation, whether it be confrontation with British industry, such as the miners, or the seeking of confrontation by making silly noises against the USSR? That sort of policy helps no one.

Mr. Mason: It causes public discussion, which is a contributory factor, but much depends on how these things are said. I am satisfied that the NATO alliance recognises the major contribution that the United Kingdom makes, especially when we, as distinct from any other member of the military structure, make a contribution to the strategic nuclear force and the tactical nuclear theatre force within Western Europe as well as contributing a professional conventional force.

Mr. Churchill: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that following full mobilisation of reserve manpower the Armed Forces of the Crown would be fewer than those of Switzerland and Sweden, or even Finland, with a population one-twelfth that of Great Britain? On that basis, how can he be so complacent about Britain's contribution to the defence of NATO?

Mr. Mason: I question the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. What cannot be disputed is that Her Majesty's Forces are all professionals. We do not have conscripts. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we start conscription?

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to attend a meeting of NATO Defence Ministers.

Mr. Mason: The dates of the spring NATO ministerial meetings have not yet been fixed.

Mr. Blaker: I draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the important issue of co-operation in the procurement of arms and equipment. Was it not as a result of recent initiative by some of the NATO Ministers that the Independent Programme Group was set up? Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether the Group made any progress at its recent meeting in Rome?

Mr. Mason: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in this matter. I am pleased to say that we are making some progress. The French attended the IPG meeting in Rome. There is the distinct possibility of a further meeting next month. We are hoping that there is a possibility, flowing from the Independent Programme Group meetings, of developing NATO weaponry based on Western European defence industries.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend tell Ministers at the next meeting of NATO that in comparison with our contribution we are not satisfied with their contributions? Will he make it clear that Britain is finding it particularly difficult to meet the exchange costs involved in maintaining the British Army of the Rhine—costs that must be met in foreign currency, with great disadvantage to our balance of payments?

Mr. Mason: I am sure that our NATO allies appreciate that difficulty. First, they recognise that we are making a major contribution in spite of our economic difficulties. Secondly, Britain's psychological presence as a member of NATO is far greater than our mere military contribution.

Helsinki Agreement (Final Act)

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has taken any actions as a result of the signing by the Government of the Helsinki Final Act.

Mr. Mason: In accordance with the military confidence building measures contained in the Helsinki Final Act, we and our NATO allies have given prior notification of eight military manoeuvres, three of which were above the level of 25,000 troops. United Kingdom forces have taken part in four of these manoeuvres.

Mr. Lamond: I welcome the Minister's answer, but rather than building up greater supplies of arms in this country would it not be better to build confidence and friendship between the European nations? Will my right hon. Friend, in furtherance of that end, use his Department to assist by inviting to our manoeuvres observers from various European nations, as is suggested in the Helsinki Final Act—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a time for advancing arguments.

Mr. Mason: I tried to indicate in my initial reply that we are carrying out the voluntary aspect of the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement. We are notifying Russia and Warsaw Pact Powers of major military manoeuvres involving more than 25,000 troops. On the 4th January the Russians indicated, for the first time, that there was to be a major military manoeuvre off the Turkish coastline. They notified the Turks and the Greeks, and invited observers. They realise that they are on test. We hone that they will be forthcoming on the voluntary aspects of the Final Act.

Mr. Cormack: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the activities of the Soviets in Angola show that the Helsinki Final Act was an absolutely meaningless charade and that détente is spurious and dangerous nonsense?

Mr. Mason: The Brezhnev doctrine is operating in Angola as it tried to operate in Portugal. In Portugal it failed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take some comfort from the fact that the Brezhnev doctrine, with its ideological conflicts in the various parts of the world, especially in the underdeveloped regions, will not always succeed.

Expenditure

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the United Kingdom's NATO partners regarding any further cuts in defence expenditure.

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what further consideration has been given to reducing defence expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement about the implementation of defence cuts.

Mr. Mason: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) on 13th January on the question of defence cuts.
Our allies are, of course, aware that the United Kingdom is conducting its annual review of public expenditure. When this has been completed we shall advise the alliance of the outcome for defence.

Mr. Neubert: Now that the South Atlantic is threatened by the collapse of Angola into the arms of Communism, would it not be the height of folly to reduce the strength of the North Atlantic alliance? Will the Minister assure us that he will not cut expenditure except after the fullest consultation and in concert with our NATO partners?

Mr. Mason: That is typical of the stupid exaggeration that takes place during discussion of defence matters. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to talk about the collapse in the South Atlantic, especially since the French, American and British Navies still deploy worldwide, go into these regions, and operate with CENTO, and bearing in mind that our task forces went as far as Australia and deployed all the way back to South America. Hon. Gentleman should not make such exaggerated comments.

Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend resist demands from the Opposition that he should massively increase defence expenditure while the Government cut back on other forms of expenditure? Is he aware that in the

battle against inflation a cut in defence expenditure would make an immediate contribution and that if men are employed in peaceful production for exports that would be a far better defence of our country than employing them making arms?

Mr. Mason: What my hon. Friend has in mind would take a long time if we are to do it rationally and sensibly. That cannot be achieved within the time scale that some of my hon. Friends would like. The employment implications are quite considerable, but that apart, as Secretary of State for Defence I am not prepared to jeopardise the security of the Western alliance by quick, short-term defence cuts.

Mr. Goodhart: Will the Secretary of State now admit that in recent months there has been a stream of protest from our allies about the Governments' past, present and future defence cuts?

Mr Mason: If there had been they would not have been warranted. The hon. Gentleman knows that. He should ask our major European allies to what extent they are matching our professional contribution of 55,000 troops, through the British Army of the Rhine, a tactical air force, and a modern navy in the Eastern Atlantic, which is playing a bigger rôle than any one of their navies.

Mr. Madden: Which of our NATO allies is increasing its expenditure on defence, in terms of GNP.

Mr. Mason: I think that Greece, Turkey and Portugal will be taking an interest in that question and will no doubt be raising theirs.

Mr. Warren: In the course of cutting defence expenditure will the right hon. Gentleman examine very carefully the situation that has arisen in Europe, where we are getting railroaded into the purchase of an American aircraft for the airborne warning system when there is a suitable British aircraft which could be deployed in Europe.

Mr. Mason: I do not mind the hon. Gentleman using his little constituency lobby in defence affairs, but I hope that he will put the facts on record and recognise that although we are prepared to pay a contribution to the development of AWACS, we still have a good fall-back position, which we have not neglected


and which is still being funded, based on Nimrod.

Mr. Onslow: Can I persuade the Secretary of State to stop being arrogant and to start being rational? How does he continue to claim to be a better judge of the effectiveness of this country's contribution to NATO than all our allies? Will he not show a greater belief in the alliance by, instead of advising our allies, genuinely consulting them before making the cuts?

Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right before he comes so aggressively to the Dispatch Box. We have never let our allies down on the consultative procedures. On the Defence Review we gave them eight weeks' notice and we went through all the consultative procedures with them. They were content with that. The United Kingdom's defence expenditure, as a percentage of GNP, is 5·8 per cent.; for NATO as a whole it is 5·3 per cent.; and for NATO Europe it is 4·3 per cent. We are therefore playing our part.

Later—

Mr. Warren: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to my supplementary question I understood the Secretary of State for Defence to refer to my "little constituency lobby. This is a rather unacceptable parliamentary phrase and was a slur, I hope unintended, on the way we try to prosecute our business in this House, to look after all workers, whatever constituency interests we may be trying to represent.

Mr. Speaker: I saw the Secretary of State giving sympathetic nods, which I interpret as meaning that he was in entire agreement with the hon. Gentleman.

Dockyards (Work Load)

Mr. Bean: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the workload in the naval dockyards.

Mr. Judd: The dockyards have a heavy programme of refits of Royal Navy Ships and other vessels and craft for as far ahead as can be foreseen. They are also undertaking, where suitable capacity is available, work for United Kingdom warship builders, foreign Governments and civil customers.

Mr. Bean: In view of my hon. Friend's welcome statement and the Government's commitment to industrial democracy, will he consider reopening discussions on the subject within the Royal dockyards?

Mr. Judd: I can assure my hon. Friend that full worker involvement is regarded by us all as an important feature of the effectiveness of the yards. We are keeping this constantly under review and are always looking for ways in which it can be improved.

Mr. Tebbit: When jobs are lost in the dockyards or elsewhere as a result of Defence Reviews, what multiplier effect do the Government apply to those jobs? Is it as great a multiplier effect as is applied in the motor industry?

Mr. Judd: The hon. Member should know, from an earlier reply by my right hon. Friend this afternoon, that in the dockyards there has been no loss of jobs in the way that he suggests.

Mr. William Hamilton: Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on the effect on the Rosyth Dockyard of having a separate Scottish navy, as demanded by the SNP?

Mr. Judd: I imagine that all the workers there would wear kilts.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Minister confirm that the position he has outlined applies to Portsmouth and that the prospects for employment there in the foreseeable future are encouraging?

Mr. Judd: All the home dockyards have proved indispensable in maintaining the operating effectiveness of the fleet at the level declared to NATO.

Mr. Viggers: Will the Minister give the same categorical assurance in respect of other dockyards as he gave in the case of Portsmouth, namely, that with the present level of Government expenditure on defence none will be closed?

Mr. Judd: I shall give the same undertaking that I give on every occasion. The dockyards have proved themselves indispensable in maintaining the present operational effectiveness of the fleet at the level declared to NATO.

Mr. Burden: If, as the Minister says, there is a sufficiency of naval work in the dockyards for the foreseeable future, why


does he say that plans are being made for civilian work to be imported?

Mr. Judd: Because, as I would have thought the hon. Gentleman, with his long-standing interest in dockyards would know, there is always the problem of the balance of trade. Work does not come in a steady flow, as with production work, and rather than let men stand idle for temporary periods we are finding suitable work to fill those gaps.

Lance Tactical Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will cancel the contract for the purchase of Lance tactical nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. William Rodgers: No, Sir. Tactical nuclear weapons constitute an important element in NATO's defensive strategy, and we intend to maintain our contribution in this field.

Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that these nuclear weapons increase the potential danger of nuclear warfare? Does he not also agree that the £55 million payment will make our balance of payments that much worse, because the money is going to the Radio Corporation of America? Does he not think that the Corporation should be encouraged to invest in this country in plants like the Skelmersdale television tube factory. Would that not be preferable to this country's providing the Corporation with £55 million, with no benefit to our unemployment problem?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend asked three questions. The third is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. The answer to the first is "No". Beyond that, we take the view that these weapons form a very important part of our defensive strategy and that without them there would be a greater danger of war in Europe through the upsetting of the existing deterrent capacity of NATO.

Polaris Submarines

Mr. David Walder: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the eventual replacement of the Polaris submarines and their present missiles.

Mr. Mason: I have nothing to add to the various statements that I have made on this subject in the past.

Mr. Walder: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that next year is really a crisis year, as it is then that the last United States Polaris submarines go out of service? Will he be content with the situation thereafter, in which the only credible modern deterrent in the Western Alliance will be in the possession of France or the United States?

Mr. Mason: I would not be perturbed about that, even if the Americans phase out their Polaris submarines. The 1958 Defence Agreement with the United States will continue in force, especially the exchange of information.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that although the Americans will be phasing out they will still have a penetration of nuclear strategic weapons, whereas we have none. Does he agree that it is an extremely grave situation?

Mr. Mason: No, I do not think it is grave. The hon. Gentleman is not reading the situation aright. The Polaris fleet has many years of life left in it. We are maintaining the effectiveness of the Polaris system. We still have the means to inflict an unacceptable amount of damage upon the Soviet Union, even in a second strike, if we wish to do so.

Mr. MacFarquhar: I ask my right hon. Friend to clarify his last remark. Is he saying that the present Polaris fleet will be able to inflict unacceptable damage upon Soviet Union right into the 1980s? Is that a realistic assessment of the present Polaris fleet? If it is not, is it worth while basing our future strategy upon it?

Mr. Mason: Maintaining the effectiveness of our strategic nuclear deterrent is designed to do exactly what I suggested in my reply.

PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE (COMMUNICATIONS TO PRESS)

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Prime Minister, who is responsible for communication between the Prime Minister's Office and the Press.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The Press Office at 10 Downing Street, Sir.

Mr. Brotherton: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House by what criteria it is decided with which national newspaper his Press Office will communicate? Does he agree that for his Press Office to fail to communicate with any national newspaper makes a mockery of his claim to be in favour of more open government? Regardless of any consideration, will the Prime Minister instruct his Press Office to communicate again with The Times forthwith?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is very wide of the mark. Press notices, on-the-record statements and speeches are officially issued from the No. 10 Downing Street Press Office, and they are available to all newspapers, including The Times. I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. I support my staff on this matter. I cannot go into it any further, as judicial proceedings are involved.

Mr. Whitehead: Would whoever is responsible for communication with the Press in my right hon. Friend's office communicate to the Press on behalf of many hon. Members on both sides of the House the widespread distaste that is felt for the sustained campaign of innuendo in the national Press for the past fortnight arising from accusations made in court under qualified privilege? Will my right hon. Friend say that he agrees with those hon. Members who believe that the campaign is dangerously close to a total misuse of the so-called public right to know?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. What is particularly nauseating is the sanctimonious spirit in which this has been done. We have the spectacle of supposedly bankrupt newspapers holding up their hands for public money when they are prepared to waste money in what is classical innuendo against a Member of Parliament and, in my view, against democracy as a whole.

DUNDEE

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Dundee.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir, although, as the House knows, a series of meetings on industrial problems in Scotland has been arranged in the spring.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is high time he visited Dundee, a city which is suffering from an inordinate amount of unemployment? When he visits the city will he note that there will be tremendous anger about rumours of the Government's intention to cut off the Scottish railway system at Edinburgh and Glasgow? Is he aware that if that happens it will be a matter of great concern for the city, bearing in mind its inadequate road transport network and air communications?

The Prime Minister: There is no ministerial responsibility for rumours of that or any other kind. I shall not go to Dundee purely in pursuit of such a rumour. The hon. Gentleman will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment express himself in fairly strong language about a similar rumour that we were to cut off our railway system at Grimsby.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the mounting concern throughout the east coast of Scotland about the tragic deaths of North Sea divers? Is there scope for an inquiry into such matters as the authority of the inspectors who visit the rigs?

Mr. Speaker: Before the Prime Minister answers, I really think that supplementary questions should have some distant relationship with the Question on the Order Paper. A question of the sort raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) could properly be placed on the Order Paper.

The Prime Minister: Since the supplementary question was asked, I refer my hon. Friend to the whole series of answers that I have given on the question of the safety of persons, the regulations governing mineral workings and the safety of structures. My hon. Friend will also be


aware that plans to deal with offshore emergencies are being dealt with, as are questions of training of staff to work in hyperbaric conditions.

Mr. Goodhew: If the Prime Minister will not go as far north as Dundee, perhaps he will come to St. Albans. When he comes to St. Albans—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: What is wrong with it?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should not address me in that manner. I must ask hon. Members to relate supplementary questions to Questions on the Order Paper.

Mr. Goodhew: If the Prime Minister goes to Dundee, will he stop off at St. Albans? Will he make certain that he brings with him his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, shows him the ruins of the ancient Roman city of Verulamium—sacked by Queen Boadicea—and points out what the British people will do under a woman leader if they are overtaxed?

The Prime Minister: The question was about Dundee, not about St. Albans. The questions are wide enough already, without that matter being brought it. Should I go to St. Albans—and I have had a recent invitation to have a cup of tea with my PPS, who is an unhappy constituent of the hon. Gentleman—I shall recall what happened eventually to Boadicea. The hon. Member should advise his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that it is always best to try to solve the problems of this country by constitutional methods.

CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF

Mr. Wrigglesworth: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint an industrial relations expert to the Central Policy Review staff.

The Prime Minister: As I have made clear to the House, it is not the practice to appoint to the Central Policy Review Staff members with designated responsibility for particular subjects.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: In the light of that reply, will my right hon. Friend comment on the remarkable drop in the number

of days lost in industrial disputes over the last year? Do not those figures prove the wisdom of pursuing policies of co-operation and persuasion rather than policies of confrontation? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that they also prove the wisdom of our commitment, in the 1974 manifesto, to establish the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

Mr. Speaker: Some hon. Members appear to believe that if they are called to ask a supplementary question, they have the right to put three such questions. That is not the general rule of the House.

The Prime Minister: I join with my hon. Friend in the tribute he paid to ACAS, which has handled about 2,250 disputes since it was set up, 294 cases having been referred for settlement by arbitration proceedings in the preceding 12 months. Because I take heed of your comments, Mr. Speaker, I shall not reply in detail to the other two supplementary points made by my hon. Friend. I have told the House that the figure last year represents a total of 75 per cent. compared with the year 1972. It is not for me to express appreciation, but it would be nice to receive one churlish little tribute from the Opposition Front Bench for what has been achieved following the ending of the Tory policy of confrontation.

Mr. Tebbit: Would not such an adviser be useful, even if only to sort out the steaming row between Sir Kenneth Keith and Lord Ryder over the latter's arrogant interference in the day-to-day running of Rolls-Royce?

The Prime Minister: That has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper. [Interruption.] It only indicates the hon. Gentleman's ignorance, shared, apparently, by the Opposition Front Bench, about the reasons for setting up the CPRS. It was not involved in the matter mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I totally reject what he said about Lord Ryder in relation to Sir Kenneth Keith.

Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many more working days are lost because 1¼ million people are out of work than because of any number of industrial disputes in the last year?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. This matter was fully dealt with in a recent debate. I do not wish to anticipate the statement that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to make in the House later this week. It has been my duty to warn some firms, as I did as recently as last Thursday, in my speech in Birmingham, that where the vulnerability of employment is so great it can only make that vulnerability me greater, and possibly lethal, if they persist in having unnecessary disputes, such as the recent dispute at Linwood.

Mr. Mayhew: if the right hon. Gentleman will not make this appointment to the Think Tank, will he assure the House that at least in future he will not defy the recommendations of that body as he did in the Chrysler situation?

The Prime Minister: The House has had a full opportunity to debate Chrysler and to take a decision on it. Indeed, the report of the CPRS was published and was available to hon. Members before that debate. I have nothing to add to what was said by my right hon. Friends in that debate and nothing to add to the emphatic vote carried against the Tory Party on Chrysler. I hope that the Conservatives will be as enthusiastic at the Coventry by-election in defending their vote for unemployment in Chrysler and British Leyland as they have been in this House.

GOVERNMENT POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Ward: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech on Government policy at the Savoy Hotel on 22nd January to the French Chamber of Commerce.

The Prime Minister: I did so on 23rd January, Sir.

Mr. Ward: In addition to the encouraging signs mentioned in that speech by my right hon. Friend about Britain's recovery, has he since seen the figures showing an increase in British exports of farm machinery, particularly of tractors? Will he agree that this is a further indication of an upturn in our economy?

The Prime Minister: Yes. This was the view of the industrialists I met in Birmingham last week about the change

in the economy, however disappointing it may be to some Opposition Members. I agree with my hon. Friend about the export achievement. I saw some of that agricultural machinery and heard a great deal about those successes when I opened the Royal Show last summer.

Mr. Hordern: Will the Prime Minister explain why he referred in his speech only to the first six months' figures for the nation's share of world trade? If he consults his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade he will see that our share of world trade has been declining in the latest two quarters.

The Prime Minister: These are the figures that are available. Some of the comparable foreign figures have not yet been published and can only be estimated. Taking Britain as a whole, for the first time since the 1960s we have maintained and increased our share of world trade.

Mr. Lipton: May I, Mr. Speaker, in full accord with your ruling, ask one supplementary question relating to the subject matter of the original Question? The question is as follows: apart from the Prime Minister's speech, was it a good dinner?

The Prime Minister: There is clearly no ministerial responsibility, but the answer is "Yes, Sir". That also applies to the dinner given by the overseas bankers and also to that given by the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Lawson: Despite the Prime Minister's complacency about the economic situation, does he agree with the Home Secretary that if public expenditure were to exceed 60 per cent. of gross national product, freedom and democracy would be in danger? What does he intend to do about the situation, considering the fact that we are now in excess of that figure?

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I have already given. As a once-distinguished city editor, he should not build up for himself, or for his party, the reputation of wallowing in the hope of a national failure.

TRADES UNION CONGRESS

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I am in regular touch with the TUC.

Mr. Molloy: When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC, will he raise the problem of unemployment among young people in London and discuss what the Government intend to do to alleviate the situation?

The Prime Minister: The question of unemployment among young people, not only in London but elsewhere, has frequently been discussed with the TUC in recent months. My hon. Friend will be aware that, partly because of recent Government measures, the number of unemployed young people in the London area has fallen from a peak of 12,500 to 5,300 last month, although that figure is still much too high. I ask my hon. Friend to await the Chancellor's statement later this week.

Mr. Norman Lamont: If the Prime Minister discusses unemployment with the TUC, will he mention the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks on Peter Jay's television programme a few weeks ago, that there was bound to be an upturn in world trade because, after all, there were elections in the United States, Japan and Germany? Why do the Government assume that every economy is managed as cynically as our own? May we thank the Chancellor for making it clear to the unemployed why nothing was done about inflation last year?

The Prime Minister: I always listen to the hon. Member with great respect, but perhaps he is a little too young to remember the total manipulation of the electoral cycle by the Conservatives between 1951 and 1964, when it just failed to come off. My right hon. Friend is entitled to give any views on his diagnosis of world events relating to the pick-up in world trade. My discussions with the German Chancellor confirmed the general view of a pick-up, and it is important that the pick-up in Britain, which is now slowly beginning, is export-led and based not on an unwise programme of general inflation but on a total rejection of the policies for increased unemployment put forward by the Conservative Party. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will say whether she agrees with the Opposition's financial spokesman that their policy of cutting Govern-

ment expenditure this year would increase unemployment this year. Is that the policy of the Opposition?

Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the answer he has just given about the recent dispute at Chrysler? There is a widespread concern among trade unionists about the ease with which Members of this House blame workers for industrial disputes and automatically exonerate management for their appalling record in these matters. Is my right hon. Friend aware that if any women had been among the 57 workers claiming an extra £1 per week they would have automatically received the rise under the Equal Pay Act, but because men were involved in the dispute, the management seems to be exonerated? Is this not a clear case in which the management is to blame for an industrial dispute?

The Prime Minister: In my original answer I paid tribute to the reduction in the number of days lost through disputes—though they are still more than the country can afford. The total time lost through disputes averages two hours per worker per year. I have made clear on a number of occasions that where there is a highly vulnerable situation and where Government money has been voted by this House—even though it was rejected by the Conservatives—it is a very unwise act, which puts the continued supply of Government money and the permanent continuation of employment there severely at risk. Anyone who goes into a dispute unnecessarily when there is machinery for settling it is taking a very great risk with his job.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Has the TUC yet communicated to the Prime Minister its attitude towards the Labour Party's proposals to nationalise agricultural land? What are the Prime Minister's view on that proposal?

The Prime Minister: There is no ministerial responsibility for what I have so far only read in the Press. The policy of the Government has been clearly stated in Gracious Speeches since the election and in the manifesto. Such a proposal is not Government policy at all. I do not mind people issuing reports about it, but it has nothing to do with the Government.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House will have noted and approved your determination to ensure that supplementary questions are both brief and relevant to the main Question. Can we from the Back Benches now seek your support to ensure that ministerial answers are also brief and relevant to supplementary questions, so that we have fairness all round?

Mr. Speaker: I can tell the House and hon. Members who have not been present that I have made such an appeal to both Front Benches twice in the past two days.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are grave difficulties in requiring the Prime Minister to answer Questions. In a system which is very similar in many respects to the presidential system—the Prime Minister wields great power—it is important that Back Benchers should have the right to ask questions. If you require Back Benchers to restrict their supplementary questions and relate them to the original Question, that will cut out a great deal of subject matter. As all Back Benchers know, if a specific point has any shadow of ministerial responsibility in any other Department the Question is transferred. Therefore, the opportunities for questioning the Prime Minister will be severely limited unless the past practice of allowing supplementary questions of a specific nature related to the general Question is followed.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is not correct. I have been a Member of the House for three decades, and it is only in recent years that the custom has grown up for hon. Members to put up any coat hook on which to hang any coat they may happen to possess. The House managed exceedingly well in years past in getting Questions to the Prime Minister on subjects which hon. Members wanted answered. I am not talking about the quality of answers or questions, but if we are to have order in the House we must limit supplementary questions to the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Evelyn King: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I entirely accept

what you say. In the past—and my memory is very vivid on this subject—Prime Ministers were far more generous in allowing Questions to be put to them. Recent Prime Ministers, particularly the present Prime Minister, have so narrowly restricted Questions that virtually all that hon. Members are allowed to ask is whether, for example, he will visit Dundee.

Mr. Speaker: I have only survived in this place by never passing a comment on Prime Ministers.

Mr. Buchan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My constituency has been referred to on five occasions today, and with one exception every comment was totally inaccurate. On every occasion I endeavoured to intervene, but I was not called. I hope that when criticisms and attacks are made on an hon. Member's constituency—in this case, Chrysler at Linwood—some attempt at balance can be made. The strike was called because of the stupidity of management towards a work force which had been devoid of industrial disputes for three years. If the hon. Member representing the constituency is not called in such instances, the truth may not emerge.

Mr. Speaker: I do my best to be fair to every constituency interest, and I shall be under considerable pressure in the major business of the day, when very many constituency interests will not be dealt with. The time for that debate is being further reduced by the time we are taking now. I saw the hon. Member rise only twice. I am sorry I missed him. I shall try to do better in future.

BRITISH MERCENARIES

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should now like to make a fuller statement, following my statement to the House yesterday, on the reports of the activities of British mercenaries in Angola and on the wider issues involved.
In the present confused and dangerous situation in Northern Angola, it is obviously difficult to ascertain all the facts. I regret, however, to inform the House that there can now be little doubt that an atrocity of the kind reported


over the weekend did take place. There must inevitably remain a doubt about the number of deaths and how they took place until police investigations have been completed. A plane carrying British mercenaries left Kinshasa yesterday evening for Brussels and reached London this morning in two parties totalling 44. All are now being questioned by the police. I understand that three of the mercenaries are seriously wounded and that at least one has been found in possession of a firearm and has been detained.
The organised recruitment of young men, many of them with no military experience whatsoever, for mercenary service in Angola must be a matter of deep concern to the Government and to all hon. Members.
The Government have therefore decided to establish an inquiry with the following terms of reference:
In the light of recent events, to consider whether sufficient control exists over the recruitment of United Kingdom citizens for service as mercenaries; to consider the need for legislation, including possible amendment of the Foreign Enlistment Act ; and to make recommendations
This inquiry will be conducted by a small Committee of three Privy Councillors, and I am pleased to inform the House that the noble Lord, Lord Diplock, has agreed to act as Chairman of this inquiry and that the other two members of the Committee will by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) and the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). Lord Diplock, as the House will know, is Chairman of the Security Commission, and his expertise in that field will be especially relevant to this inquiry.
The whole House will, I think, have been as disturbed as I was by the evident facility and speed with which a small group of people, funded by an unknown source, were able to recruit misguided people to participate in what the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) referred to yesterday as this "bloody business". The potential dangers of such easy recruitment are apparent, but the proper form of control is not easily defined—and the existing law on the many complex issues involved is unsatisfactory. We have therefore concluded, and I hope that the whole House

will endorse our conclusion, that we must establish the facts of the situation by a thorough inquiry into all relevant aspects so as to prepare the ground for any necessary changes in the law. The Committee will be asked to proceed with all possible speed, given the complexity of the issues. It will, of course, be free to make an interim report, or reports, if it sees fit to do so.

Mrs. Thatcher: I thank the Prime Minister for making his statement. I wish to put three points to him. First, as we clearly do not know the facts and the numbers and names of the people involved, and as many relatives will be suffering considerable anxiety or uncertainty, will the Prime Minister or one of his right hon. Friends inform the House as soon as the full facts are known?
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we agree with what I believe he said in his statement, namely, that if a criminal offence has been committed here or by a British subject overseas the proper authorities to pursue that matter are the police, and that they must pursue it with all vigour and bring any offenders concerned before the courts in the usual way?
Thirdly, although recent events may be the occasion for setting up the inquiry, will the Prime Minister make clear that the inquiry is about the general question of the suitability of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 in the circumstances of today? As British citizens have within present recollection fought for many different causes overseas—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not for money."]—any Act of this kind can be operated not according to whether the Government approve or disapprove of the cause but only according to objective tests laid down by law about British interests. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Foreign Enlistment Act makes no distinction between whether those who fight overseas are paid or are volunteers?

The Prime Minister: On the first question, I entirely agree with the right hon. Lady about the anxiety felt by the families concerned, and more widely. As soon as fuller facts become available they will be made known either in the House or, if there is delay in our sittings or the facts become known over a weekend,


even in advance of that, and I hope that the House will understand.
The right hon. Lady asked the general question whether the responsibility lies with the police when a criminal offence is committed. Yes, Sir. I have already said that the police are examining many aspects of recent events. Obviously, I cannot go into that as it is a police matter.
This is not only a question of the Foreign Enlistment Act, to which the right hon. Lady twice referred. There is some doubt about the interpretation of that Act, as the right hon. Lady knows well. It was last invoked, I think, in the case of the Jameson raid in the last century. Whether or not it is applicable here is a legal matter into which it would not be appropriate for me to enter. I have had advice on this matter. Certainly, the right hon. Lady will know the law. If murder has been committed or is alleged to have been committed abroad, even in Africa, by any British citizen against another, those who committed the offences are liable to be charged in this country in respect of such action if the facts support such a charge.
I agree with the right hon. Lady that there are different occasions, reasons, motives and inspirations for people going abroad to fight. For example, in the Yom Kippur war a number of her constituents—and constituents of many other hon. Members—went to fight for Israel, either because they were Israeli students in Britain—perhaps on the reserve list—or because they wanted to go to the land which is the foundation of their faith. That. I am sure, is understood by everyone. Similar considerations arise in other parts of the world. That is quite different from the present situation. It must be a matter for the Committee to look into.
It is entirely different from a situation in which members of a small group—I can say this without reference to their future or to police inquiries—of smalltime crooks with records have become possessed of vast sums of money, sums far greater than they could ever earn in other ways honestly or dishonestly, and have obtained access to lists of names of former soldiers, SAS and the rest, and signed them up as mercenaries in conditions which I hope the whole House would regard as utterly abhorrent to our

system and standards in this country. It is, therefore, a very different matter from the Foreign Enlistment Act, which certainly needs close examination, and that is one of the purposes of the Committee.
That is not the only purpose of the Committee. We must face the fact that within a few days a small group of people—whatever their background—have been able to raise a vast private army. That this is possible could be a threat to democracy in this country. They have raised a vast private army because they had access to money to enable them to do so. [Interruption] Hon Gentlemen may sneer at that, but there could be a threat to democracy in this country.
The reference to legislation in the suggested terms of reference of the Committee—I am, of course, prepared to listen to any views that the right hon. Lady has about them—is specifically but not exclusively to the Foreign Enlistment Act. There is legislation—some of it very ancient—about the raising and drilling of armies and about the protection of democracy, in the Public Order Act passed just before the war. These are matters to be inquired into.

Mr. David Steel: I fully support the setting up of the inquiry, but will the Prime Minister clarify what at first sight seems to be a contradiction in his statement? He said that the inquiry is to consider whether sufficient control exists over the recruitment of United Kingdom citizens, but later in his statement he said that the existing law on the issues involved is unsatisfactory. Is it the Government's view that the law should be changed to prevent the enlistment of mercenaries in this country by foreign Powers?

The Prime Minister: It is extremely difficult to answer that. From the advice one gets from those most highly competent in the matter of the application of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 to a situation such as this, it is very difficult to get a clear view. The Act itself is now, I think, very much outdated in certain of its particulars. One has only to read what it says about principalities, Powers, peshwas and all the rest of it. It is a little outdated in its language.
I find it very difficult to advise the House whether, on the advice given to me,


the Act can be invoked in this particular case. We need clarification, and if the Committee recommends that changes in that Act or in other legislation are needed it is for the Committee to say so and for the House to act on its advice.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be considerable disappointment in Britain and in Africa that the setting up of the inquiry will lead to delays in activating measures to stop mercenaries being recruited? Would it not be possible to put an Act through this House in 24 hours, at least making it illegal openly to recruit mercenaries in this country? The facts are very well known and action is needed now.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has obviously been into this question and has expressed his anxiety. I share those anxieties to some extent. All I can say is that, within whatever powers are available to the Government under the law as it stands, we shall do everything in our power to prevent the further recruitment and establishment of mercenaries from this country to Angola or to any troubled areas.

Sir Frederic Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the Prime Minister's last remarks, and I make this point quite seriously and not contentiously. He earlier announced that the police are looking into whether citizens of this country have committed criminal acts, and he said that if they have done so they are to be prosecuted. I respect the Prime Minister for what he has said. He then went on a little later to describe those who may well be accused by the police as "small-time crooks". In view of the fact that prosecutions may well be impending, I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether on reflection the Prime Minister feels that it was a wise remark to make—or, indeed, whether it was in order in the terms of the sub judice rule.

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman quite genuinely misunderstood what I said. The inquiries that are being made by the police obviously refer to what has happened in Angola, and in particular to the issue—they are interviewing the mercenaries who have just landed, as I made very

clear in my statement—which has caused such deep concern in all parts of the House, the allegations about atrocities and murders out there. My reference was to the people who are being interviewed by the police to see what they can discover about what happened in Africa, whether any criminal charges lie and, if so, against whom.
When I referred to the small-time crooks—I did not want to flatter them—I was talking about the people who organised the mercenary operation. That is an entirely separate thing, and I am entitled to tell the House and the country that these deep anxieties hit all of us and that this is seen as a money-making operation organised by a small number of people. I think it is necessary for the House to take this matter seriously and to consider, after the report of the inquiry, what measures we may have to take to prevent a recurrence of that kind of behaviour.

Sir F. Bennett: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the point of order was settled as a point of argument. There are a number of hon. Members who want to ask questions.

Sir F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that the recollection of the House is that the Prime Minister dealt with the matter in clear terms in what he said earlier. I hope that those who read Hansard tomorrow will judge for themselves.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In any case, the Prime Minister has made a further statement.

The Prime Minister: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman—I know from the best of motives—said that the impression left in the House was different. If it is in order, may I repeat the words I used? I said that "A plane carrying British mercenaries left Kinshasa yesterday", and I talked about the arrival of the mercenaries here. I added that "All are now being questioned by the police".
I then went on to refer to the reasons for inquiry.
I was not referring in the slightest to the police interviewing the people who were behind the mercenary operation. As far as I know, they are not at London Air-


port. They are certainly not being held for any kind of inquiry. It was a genuine misunderstanding.

Mr. Amery: I wholly agree that it is appropriate for the Government to warn the public, and especially young people, of the dangers of going to Angola, but is the Prime Minister aware that many of us feel that the Western Powers collectively should be organising help to the pro-Western and anti-Communist forces in Angola and that, in the absence of such help, to interfere with the flow of genuine volunteers to the pro-Western forces in Angola would be tantamount to becoming accomplices of the Cuban and Soviet aggressors?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman must avoid confusing two separate things. There is, of course, ground for public debate in this House and outside about the whole foreign policy of the Western Powers, individual Western Powers and so on, in relation to Angola in view of the tragedy that has overtaken Angola. But that is, I think, an entirely separate matter from this.
I am talking here not about volunteers but about mercenaries. The Government would have taken exactly the same line and the House, I am sure, would have taken exactly the same line—and the public, I think, would have shared the same sense of shock—no matter for which side in Angola the mercenaries were being recruited to fight. I would have taken exactly the same view, for example, if anyone in this country, whoever it might he, were recruiting mercenaries on this basis to go out and fight for the Communist forces in Angola or for any other cause there.
This is an entirely separate matter from the much wider—and, I agree, difficult—foreign affairs question that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Faulds: Is the Prime Minister justified in proclaiming a prohibition on men going to Angola while at the same time issuing a rallying cry for the recruitment of the Israeli forces? Does he not agree that this would appear to some of us to be somewhat partisan?
Although I personally deprecate that these men volunteered for the side for which they did in Angola, will not my

right hon. Friend agree that if men are stupid enough or heroic enough to volunterr for other people's wars that is their affair? Should we not remember the courageous contribution made to the Spanish Republican cause by some of our own colleagues?

The Prime Minister: The view that my hon. Friend takes now and, indeed, took at the time about events in the Middle East, of course, means that we fully understand the strength of his views on this matter—

Mr. Skinner: And he gets paid for it. [Interruption.]

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you did not hear that observation of my colleague—I have to call him one of my colleagues—that I was "paid" others did. Would you care to make your comment?

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Am I to understand that the hon. Gentleman said that his hon. Friend was also paid for it?

Mr. Skinner: I have every reason to believe that my hon. Friend has in fact been paid in kind on many occasions by the many visits he has paid to the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker: It is entirely out of order for any hon. Member to cast personal reflections on another hon. Member of this House. We work on the basis that we are hon. Members.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: If there were any imputation implied that the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) was paid in similar circumstances, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must withdraw it.

Mr. Skinner: I have made it perfectly clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), not unlike many in this Chamber, as instanced in the register of interests which has just been published, has in fact made many visits to the Middle East and that, as far as I am aware, on some of those occasions his visits have been paid for by various bodies—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the House cool down. I gather that that is the


hon. Member for Bolsover's way of saying that he is not making the charge—[Hon. Members: "No."]—that the hon. Member for Warley, East took money as a mercenary, which I understood to have been the implication of his first statement.

Mr. Skinner: No.

Mr. Speaker: May I say to the House that I think that personal observations are not only to be deplored, but are sheer bad taste?

Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that it has to be made absolutely clear that it is common practice in this House that Members do go on sponsored visits abroad and a great number have done so. There is a great deal of difference between that and the clear accusation, which the Gentleman from Bolsover apparently is unable to realise in his somewhat limited mind, that when he uses the phrase "He is paid for it" that is a total bloody lie, and he knows it.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say, first of all, that I do not like swearing in this place—

Mr. Faulds: Do you like that sort of accusation?

Mr. Speaker: No, I do not. May I tell the House, secondly, that I have been on sponsored trips myself, although I am not likely to do so any more. The hon. Member for Bolsover, I am quite sure, did not wish to reflect on the personal honour of the hon. Member for Warley, East.

Mr. Faulds: That is exactly what he did want to do.

Mr. Speaker: We must give the hon. Member for Bolsover a chance to make it clear that he was making no imputation on the honour of the hon. Member for Warley, East.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There are a few people in this House who have never at any time been involved in any sponsored trips of any kind to any country—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me say to the hon. Member for Bolsover that there

is no advantage to be gained by anyone trying to argue with the Chair. The position is quite clear. I am asking the hon. Member for Bolsover to make it absolutely clear that he made no reflection on the honour of the hon. Member for Warley, East. When that is done, the matter is settled and we can get on with our important business.

Mr. Skinner: As I said before, Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made it clear that I was referring to right hon. and hon. Members in this House who on many occasions—there is plenty of evidence to support what I say—have had trips abroad which have been paid for, and that I am one of those who do not—

Hon. Members: Name him.

Mr. Speaker: I have no intention of naming the hon. Member for Bolsover when he is, in his own way, making it clear that he meant no personal reflection on the honour of the hon. Member for Warley, East.
I think that the Prime Minister was about to answer a question.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker, though it seems a long time ago. It was a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) in which he was making a comparison between the situation in Angola and situations in certain other areas. I thought that I was right earlier, and that probably it would get an echo in many parts of the House, to draw a distinction between volunteers of the kind I mentioned, especially those stirred by a deep religious faith or by any other faith, and people recruiting mercenaries for the sake of personal profit, the profit being to the group who sent them off. I think that there is a vast difference and that the House should be concerned that anyone can raise a private army by this means for service at home or abroad. That is why we are setting up the inquiry.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me tell the House that there is a Ten-Minute Bill and that, following it, a very large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak in the debate on the Dock Work Regulation Bill. Since an inquiry is


being set up, I think that we had better move on now.

Later—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. More in sorrow than in anger, may I make this brief comment on the ruling you have just given? In his statement today the Prime Minister made allegations about certain British citizens, in many cases former members of the British Army, who are to be the subject of investigation by the police and possibly the subject of action by the courts. I had always thought that a man in this country was presumed innocent until proven guilty. I very much regret that, due to the ill-advised intervention of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and others, the House has not been able to question the Prime Minister on this important matter.

Mr. Speaker: Every right hon. Member who makes a statement in this House takes personal responsibility for his own statement.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Mr. John Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? The next items on the Order Paper

are two motions in the name of the Leader of the House to commit Community documents to a Standing Committee. Am I right in supposing that, if 20 hon. Members rise in their places signifying their view, which I share, that matters concerning nuclear safety should more properly be considered on the Floor of the House than in a Standing Committee, those motions will be denied?

Mr. Speaker: The answer is "Yes".

Motion made, and Question put,
That Commission Document No. R/2662/75 relating to Nuclear Safety be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Dormand.]

Not less than 20 Members having risen in their places and signified their objection thereto, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it, pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

Motion made, and Question put,
That Commission Document No. R/2663/75 relating to Nuclear Safety be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Dormand.]

Not less than 20 Members having risen in their places and signified their objection thereto, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it, pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

CRIMINAL APPEAL (AMENDMENT)

4.08 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to facilitate the receipt of fresh evidence by the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in cases referred to that court by the Secretary of State; and with respect to the adjudication of such cases; and for connected purposes.
The objects of the Bill are to make it easier to correct serious miscarriages of justice in which a man has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a crime and the Secretary of State has become sufficiently concerned about the case to refer it back to the Court of Appeal.
Inevitably, the number of cases referred by the Secretary of State is small. Equally inevitably, because of the time that the process takes, it is only very serious cases which are likely to be referred—in other words, cases in which the appellant is serving a long term of imprisonment for a crime of which he continues to protest his innocence and has caused some serious doubt in the mind of the Home Secretary sufficient to make the right hon. Gentleman refer the case back to the Court of Appeal.
The Bill would alter the present procedure in two respects. In cases referred to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, by the Home Secretary, the Court would have no obligation to admit fresh evidence, even if that evidence had been available at the original time but because, perhaps, of an error on the part of counsel or for some other reason it had not been called at the trial. At present, fresh evidence is admissible only if there is a reasonable explanation for the fact that it was not called. One object of the Bill would be to remove that proviso in exceptional cases referred to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, by the Home Secretary.
Secondly, and probably more important, the Bill would impose on the Court, unless the Home Secretary directed that the Court should confine itself to the narrower issue, the obligation to consider the whole of the evidence, both old the whole of the evidence had been and new, and to ask itself whether, if before the court at the original trial, it is

probable that a reasonable jury, properly directed, would have brought in a verdict of guilty. At present there is a grave danger in any case that goes to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, even when fresh evidence is admitted, that the Court asks itself, in effect, whether that new evidence really proves the appellant's innocence. In a case before the Court of Appeal the burden of proof is on the appellant, who has to prove that if the fresh evidence had been presented earlier no reasonable jury could have convicted him. I submit that that is not the right test. It should be whether, with the whole of the evidence before the jury and the jury having been properly directed and told that they had a duty to acquit if they had a reasonable doubt, any jury would in those circumstances have been likely to convict.
It may well be a valid criticism of my Bill that it is too narrow and that it is restricted to the exceptional cases referred by the Home Secretary. I accept that there is need of a wider reform, but that would be outside the scope of a Ten-Minute Bill.
In support of my argument that a Bill of this kind is needed I would refer to only one case, though there are a number of cases of which I have knowledge. I quote from the report of Justice for June 1975 concerning a Luton murder case,
in which three men were convicted in 1969 of the murder of a Luton sub-Postmaster virtually on the sole evidence of an accomplice Alfred Matthews. Their original applications for leave to appeal were dismissed but in December, 1972 the Home Secretary referred the conviction of Patrick Murphy back to the Court of Appeal because a new alibi witness had been found who was not available at the trial.
The Court of Appeal found this witness to be wholly reliable and credible and quashed Murphy's conviction. In May, 1974 as a result of representations made and new material submitted…the Home Secretary referred the cases of the other two men, David Cooper and Michael McMahon, back to the Court of Appeal asking it to reconsider their convictions. In his Letter of Reference, the Home Secretary said that the acquittal of Murphy raised questions about the credibility of Matthews which he desired the court to resolve.
Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal without referring to the occasions when further cross-examination had been ordered, held that the Criminal Appeal Act, 1968 did not permit it to order the further cross-examination of Matthews. It conceded, however, that there


was new material affecting the credibility of Matthews upon which it would be proper to cross-examine him. It concluded that the jury, despite the acquittal of Murphy, might well have convicted Cooper and McMahon. The appeals were dismissed.
The Court of Appeal subsequently found that no point of law of general public importance was involved in their decision, and the application for a Certificate to apply for leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.
Our criminal and judicial process works, on the whole, efficiently and fairly. As a Member of Parliament and a solicitor with some experience in criminal cases, I have very seldom come across cases in which I have been convinced that a wholly innocent man has been convicted of a serious offence. I know, however, of at least one such case. The man in question, whom I believe to be completely innocent, is still in prison serving a long sentence of imprisonment with many years of his sentence still in front of him, probably more years than he would have to serve if he were guilty, because he cannot tell the Parole Board "I am sorry, I have repented" when he is still maintaining, I believe absolutely rightly, that he is innocent of the offence.
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would be willing to refer the case to the Court of Appeal if I were to press him to do so, but the new evidence available, to the extent that it is admissible, does not prove the man's innocence. It could be false, but, taken in conjunction with the very thin evidence on which he was convicted it would un-

doubtedly, to my mind, have ensured his acquittal if it had been presented at his original trial. With the law as it now stands, I fear that the Court would dismiss the man's appeal but with my Bill I believe that the Court would surely allow the appeal and that justice would be better served.
I believe that my Bill, which is supported by lawyers on both sides of the House, will greatly improve the administration of justice and ensure the safety valve that we need in very rare but nevertheless alarming cases of serious miscarriage of justice. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Douglas-Mann, Mr. F. P. Crowder, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Ivan Lawrence, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. Brian Sedgemore and Mr. William Wilson.

CRIMINAL APPEAL (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to facilitate the receipt of fresh evidence by the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in cases referred to that court by the Secretary of State; and with respect to the adjudication of such cases; and for connected purposes: and the same was read a First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20th February and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.17 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Liberal Party and his hon. Friends.

Mr. Foot: In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, and before I come to any attempt to describe its details, perhaps I may comment on the general background. It is necessary to do so particularly in view of the misrepresentation, as I regard it, of what the Bill seeks to achieve. The misrepresentation has been spread in many quarters.
I sometimes think that it would be helpful if many of the editors of our great newspapers paid a little more attention to their own industrial correspondents, because I believe that if they were to do so they might have a better knowledge of what was happening in industry generally. In particular, it would be advantageous as a background to the Bill if most of the editors in Fleet Street who have been denouncing it so fiercely would read the excellent book which was written by Mr. David Wilson, industrial correspondent of the Observer, who died so tragically some months ago and who wrote what was in my opinion a very fine book on this whole subject. It would be very helpful for the rest of Fleet Street and for this House if what he reported were to be taken into account, as well as the wild exaggerations and misconceptions which have been spread by the editors of most of the newspapers in discussing the Bill.
Perhaps I may say to my hon. Friends on this side of the House especially that believe all of them will agree with me that the Labour Party has a very fine tradition in respect of legislation about the docks. Almost all, if not all, the great reforms affecting the dock industry have been carried by Labour Ministers or Labour Governments, and this Bill seeks to sustain that tradition. Indeed, there has been a familiar pattern about dock

legislation and difficulties in the docks, if I may describe it in that way, in the sense that what has happened over many decades has been that inquiries or bodies of citizens in the country generally have made proposals for reform. Those have been advocated and arguments have been presented in their favour up and down the country.
Then when commissions have reported or bodies have presented their views, Conservative Governments of one character or another have put the information and the proposals in the pigeon-holes in the offices. There has followed a few years later, or perhaps at an even shorter interval, the inevitable industrial explosion which derives from not seeking to solve these problems in time. A Labour Government have then had to clear up the mess. That is the procedure, which I can justify by reference to what has happened in the docks many times. It is that point in the historical cycle that we have now reached.
What we propose in the Bill is a constructive measure to deal with a problem which it is impossible for the House or the country to shirk. In March 1974, when we came to office, it was already immediately apparent that we should have to take action of some kind. That was apparent from what had happened in the previous three or four years, when we had had two of the biggest dock strikes in our history—indeed, two of the only three comprehensive national dock strikes we have ever had.
If that evidence had not been sufficient to persuade us that action had to be taken, there was the extremely damaging unofficial action at the beginning of last year. By then we were preparing our legislative proposals, and the end of that strike was partly produced by the fact that we had proposals to bring forward. But no one in the situation of 1974 could have concluded that nothing should be done.
What we did first of all when we examined last year the problems in 1974 was to seek to see whether the problems could be tackled by the 1946 Act. We sought carefully over many weeks and months, in discussions with interested bodies, to see whether we could solve the problem with no fresh legislation. But the more we looked at it the more we


were drawn to the conclusion that that would be a hopeless course. We based our actions then on an examination of reports about this industry over a number of years.
In particular, we took as one starting place for our action, as we were not merely entitled but had a duty to do, the Report of Lord Devlin, who inquired into the operation of the 1946 Act in the mid-1950s. I have previously quoted to the House what is said on page 18 of that Report, which is extremely important and emphasises the whole principle. But I emphasise it all the more strongly because the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has made it clear in the last few days that he is not merely critical of our proposed extension of the Dock Labour Scheme but thinks that the whole scheme is now long since out of date. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is the official view of the Opposition now, I understand, which makes it all the more necessary for me to quote to the House what was said by Lord Devlin, whose evidence after all should not be dismissed too readily by any hon. Member.
This was what Lord Devlin said in 1956—

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: A long while ago.

Mr. Foot: Yes, but I will come to the most up-to-date reports for the hon. Gentleman in a moment. But it is no good dismissing what Lord Devlin said then, because in 1956 the same claim was made that the Dock Labour Scheme was long since out of date. It was that very question with which Lord Devlin dealt. If hon. Member would listen to the views of Lord Devlin, I should be obliged. He should not be dismissed out of hand quite so readily. I know that his views on the matter have not been printed in The Times or any other of our so-called responsible newspapers in recent days, but I should like to quote his views. [Interruption.] I know that it is distasteful for Conservative Members to hear about these questions, but they will none the less have to hear them.

Mr. Edmond Bulmer: This was 20 years ago.

Mr. Foot: If hon. Members will listen, I shall be grateful. They should pay a

little more respect to Lord Devlin's views. He said:
The fact is that, if the Scheme expired, the first and most urgent task for all concerned would be to devise another one with all the essential features of the original".
So Lord Devlin is not exactly saying that it was all out of date.
Lord Devlin went on:
The Scheme must now be regarded as part of the structure of the industry. It is no use threatening to destroy common property; threats of this sort act as an irritant and disturb the minds of moderate men without deterring the extreme. It is important to note that the Employers' proposals are not at all aimed at the destruction of the Scheme. They have since 1941 always accepted the necessity for it; their proposal is simply that they, and not the Board, should run it.
That is not exactly a commendable proposal, and Lord Devlin himself was not prepared to support it.
It is proper for us to start from that cleavage of principle. Lord Devlin and those who inquired with him then believed not merely that the scheme was a proper one to sustain but said clearly "If you abandon it, you will have to look around to devise another sort of scheme which serves the same kind of purpose" The rest of his Report underlined how impossible he thought it was to accept the employers' claim that they should run the whole scheme and that the whole principle of joint direction which was deeply embedded in the scheme should be abandoned.
Hon. Members have said that that Report was published a long time ago, so let us come a little more up to date. The Devlin reforms, essential and important though they were, did not deal with the whole situation because those which were put into operation in 1967 or thereabouts and which largely ended the casualisation in the industry were important and far-reaching but were carried through at that time—I am not blaming anyone—without recognition in the Report which came forward of all the technological changes which were then going strongly forward in the industry.
Within a few years of the decasualisation schemes being put into operation in the mid-60s or slightly later, it became more and more evident that there was a serious weakness in the whole way in which the scheme operated. That weakness turned on the absence of any effective and proper definition of dock work.


Therefore, another inquiry was set up by the Department of Employment, headed by a well-known QC, Sir Peter Bristow.
That Committee eventually came forward with proposals for trying to deal with this problem and for producing a definition of dock work which would be workable and acceptable. Its Report made clear some of the difficulties, describing how originally there were long delays in the appeals relating to what was and was not dock work. The matter had to be settled through legal machinery and it took many months. Even when that long process had been partly overcome, Sir Peter Bristow underlined that, in his opinion and that of his Committee, the reference of these questions to the courts and eventually to the House of Lords was not a sensible way of settling the industrial question of what constituted dock work.
Therefore, just before 1970 the Bristow Committee produced proposals which were available to the incoming Conservative Government. How seriously the new Government looked at the Bristow proposals I cannot tell, but certainly they put them back in the pigeon-hole very quickly and abandoned the idea of taking any steps on the basis of that Report. Indeed, they were so busy, no doubt, on other industrial matters, like the Industrial Relations Act 1971, that they did not have time to apply their minds to what Sir Peter Bristow and his Committee considered the urgent question of what should be done about dock work and the whole of the problems with which this Bill seeks to deal.
Those problems should have been faced in 1970 and 1971. If they had been faced then, it is likely that the two great strikes of 1970 and 1972 and the strike in 1975 could have been avoided.
If anyone wants any evidence about that, the latest report that we have on the subject is the Report by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, produced following the strike at the beginning of last year. That Report underlined how urgent it was that legislation should come forward. It said that part of the frustration in the docks was due to the length of time it was taking for legislation to be introduced. It emphasised all that I am saying about

the Bristow Report and the expectations which had been aroused but never fulfilled. Nobody, in the face of that evidence, has the slightest ground for saying that it is not right for us to go ahead with legislation on the subject.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: Did not the Bristow Committee consist exclusively of representatives of employers of registered dock labour and registered dock workers?

Mr. Foot: The Bristow Report represented employers and workers, and no doubt it also represented Sir Peter Bristow himself, who was an eminent QC.
The complaint is that the Committee made recommendations that some people did not like, but there are often complaints when one makes recommendations which are not liked. No one should dismiss what the Committee proposed, any more than people should dismiss the fundamental principle which was laid down originally by Lord Devlin, and which we think still stands, whatever the Opposition may think.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Many workers who are members of unions other than the Transport and General Workers' Union are worried in case they are likely to be engulfed in the scheme. I am totally in favour of the scheme, but they must be given an assurance that they will not be poached, taken over or engulfed in unions to which they do not wish to belong.

Mr. Foot: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have never had a different attitude about that. There never has been an intention to infringe the rights of other trade unionists. My hon. Friends have naturally expressed the views of their own unions and those of other unions concerned. I believe that we shall be able to pursue a common approach on the matter. It is because of that approach that we have the full agreement of the General Council of the TUC on the way in which we are proceeding. I think that all my hon. Friends will be satisfied with what I have to say on that account.

Mr. Thomas Torney: When workers who are members of unions other than the TGWU leave a warehouse within the five-mile radius


will they have to be replaced by registered dockers? If so, does my right hon. Friend not agree that unions like my own, USDAW, will ultimately be wiped out in areas where they have organised for many years. [Interruption.] I hope that my hon. Friends will let my right hon. Friend answer.

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend is fully entitled to put that question. I shall say something more about it later, because it fits into a later part of my remarks. These are precisely some of the questions which were raised in our discussions following the publication of the consultative document, the purpose of which was to enable us to settle those matters. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be satisfied by the solutions we have secured.

Mr. Cyril Smith: With whom have consultations taken place? Can the Minister explain why, for example, he refused to meet representatives of trade unions from Dagenham about whom I wrote to him asking him to meet them?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman has raised that matter before. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have met about 40 deputations. We have not refused to meet people to discuss the matter, whether they were critical of what we proposed or not.
The representations to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service show that the spokesmen for the TGWU transport section were eager that the scheme should go ahead. Of course they wanted safeguards, and we understand that. The safeguards we have given will deal with the situation. It is not true that we have refused consultation with large numbers of people who have to come to see us.

Mr. James Prior: Why did the right hon. Gentleman tell me, when I wrote to him asking him to see certain shop stewards and trade union officials representing large interests throughout London, that he wanted only to see leaders of unions and therefore would not see them? The right hon. Gentleman should not be allowed to get away with the sort of statement he has just made.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman has misconceived the situation entirely. I should like to see the letter to which he refers. It is absolutely false to say that we have refused to meet deputations on the subject. We have met dozens of special deputations. I am prepared to seek to publish in the Official Report the full list of the bodies and different associations which we have met and from which we have had representations. The right hon. Gentleman could then see whether I am justified in what I have said.
I now turn to the details of the Bill. I hope that my description of it will be of assistance in showing how it is to operate. I begin with the National Dock Labour Board, which has the central rôle in the legislation. At present it is established under the 1967 scheme and is responsible only for the administration of that scheme. Clause 1 provides for the dissolution of the present Board and its reconstitution as a statutory corporation consisting of a chairman, vice-chairman and 12 other members.
Clause 3 makes provision for the finances of the new Board's constitution and administration, for the transfer of functions and property from the old Board to the new. Under the Bill, the board will not only administer the new scheme but will be concerned with the classification of work as dock work—under Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9—and also, more generally, it will keep under review developments affecting the performance of dock work—under Clause 2. These added functions can be carried out only by a body with detailed knowledge of the industry.
Of course the Board must discharge, and must be seen to discharge, its duties fairly. We reject the idea that the two sides of the industry at present represented on the Board would act only in their own narrow interests and would carry out their statutory responsibilities without regard to the specific requirements in the Bill or to any broader considerations.
However, to be sure that the Board takes fully into account the views of those performing work which could, under the procedures of the Bill, in the future be classified as dock work, Clause 1(4) provides for four Board members and the


chairman and vice-chairman to be appointed only after consultation with the TUC and CBI as well as the National Joint Council for the Port Industry. In making the appointment the Government hope to ensure that the two members appointed for the employers' side have the full confidence of those employers' organisations not presently represented which felt that they had an immediate concern. The same applies to the two trade union members.
Clause 4(1) of the Bill requires the Secretary of State to prepare a new scheme, which under Clause 5(2) is to be framed with a view

"(a) to securing stability of employment for dock workers and the creation and maintenance of a permanent labour force of a size and composition appropriate for the efficient performance of dock work; and
(b) to securing that, wherever the Scheme is in force and subject only to such exceptions as it may provide, dock work is done by registered dock workers and not otherwise."

In doing so we shall be carrying out the requirements of the International Labour Organisation Convention. I shall not read out the details of the convention, although I hope that no apologies are required, certainly on this side of the House, for ensuring that we carry out such conventions.
It is necessary to refer to the application of the existing scheme in order to remove some anxieties which may exist in some quarters.
There should also not be any argument about Clause 6 of the Bill, which seeks to ensure that all work currently performed as "dock work" under the 1967 scheme is classified in future as dock work for the purposes of the Bill and the new scheme to be made under the new arrangements. Because the present scheme definitions of dock work in each port were drafted in war-time conditions and were based upon the wording of prewar industrial agreement, the actual local definitions are a maze of illogical complexities and often difficult to interpret. As we said in those provisions, we wish to ensure that no worker shall imagine that existing rights will be taken away because of the operation of the scheme.
I turn to one aspect of the matter which has given rise to considerable controversy. We have already referred to the Bristow

Report but I do so again when considering the cargo-handling zone. The Bill provides that specified work, which falls within the defined description of work under Part I of Schedule III and is not specifically excluded under Part II, may be classified as dock work if it is performed in the cargo-handling zone. Under Clause 5(3), the cargo-handling zone comprises everywhere five miles from the sea or from a major inland waterway.
A major question during the consultations was why there should be a limit of five miles. Hon. Gentleman may laugh, but the first indication of the five-mile limit arose in the Bristow Report, so it did not emerge from the sinister brain of a Minister in a Labour Government. However, there are further arguments. First, the work of dock workers stems primarily from the unloading and loading of goods from sea-going ships but has also in many ports been concerned with ancillary operations connected with the movement, storing and handling of these goods. When the Bristow Committee in 1970 looked at the question of the definition of dock work in London, it recommended a five-mile limit.
However, secondly, work up to five miles from port boundaries has been accepted as "dock work" and the employers concerned have voluntarily bcome registered and licensed to employ registered dock workers. Those employers were, of course, responding to the voluntary efforts to secure jobs for registered dock workers in the way recommended by the Aldington-Jones Committee. At that time the proposals were warmly welcomed by the Opposition. At that time the Opposition specifically agreed that existing workers at the Aintree terminal should be registered as dock workers even though that terminal was well outside the port of Liverpool.
Therefore, the proposal for the five-mile corridor does no more than take account of the fact that previous attempts to solve the problems of the changing nature of dock work have led to registered dockers working well outside the port. That is the fact of the matter. It was recognised by the previous Conservative Government, and I do not understand why such alarm should have been raised on the matter.
There has been considerable misrepresentation about the extension of the cargo, handling zone. I should like to put the matter right. The Bill allows for the possibility of the Secretary of State seeking the views of the National Dock Labour Board as to whether the cargo-handling zone should be extended. This power is necessary to ensure that for the future account can be taken of developments in the performance of dock work. For example, that could be because of furthers technological developments or further changes in the pattern of trade or in the structure of the industry. It would be wrong to say that for the next 25 years, which is the length of time since the last Act, all dock work will be performed within the cargo-handling zone.
Therefore, the Bill sets out procedures to ensure that all concerned can make their views known about any proposals by allowing at least 40 days for persons interested to make representations to the Board. In the light of the Board's report the Secretary of State would, if he thought it appropriate, be able to make an order extending the zone but only after that order had been approved in draft by both Houses of Parliament.
Therefore, Parliament would be required to debate whether such a proposal was justified. Indeed, all the proposals that we make in the Bill are subject to the decision of the Minister who is responsible and who is answerable to Parliament. That is the better way to settle these matters. It is much better than seeking to transfer to the courts matters which are of industrial complication. Our experience of dock work being settled by appeals to the House of Lords has led us to the view that that is not a satisfactory way to deal with the matter.
I turn to the non-scheme port arrangements. Clause 7 is intended to deal with non-scheme ports. In the consultative document "Dockwork", published last March and on which the Bill is based, the Government reiterated their view that they considered that the Dock Labour Scheme should apply wherever significant third-party loading and unloading operations were carried out. Whilst we recognised that the introduction of the scheme could cause problems at some non-scheme ports, it is our general view that

it could give rise to major difficulties both now and in the future if the scheme were not extended to substantially all third-party loading and unloading.
The consultative document pointed out that the expansion of some ports not covered by the original scheme because they were previously very small had made it impossible to take an overall view of labour requirements and had led to un-fairness in the sharing of the costs and benefits involved in change in the industry. This does not, however, mean that the scheme would automatically be extended to all small ports, irrespective of the amount of trade or the regularity of traffic.
Clause 7 of the Bill requires all those, apart from most nationalised industries, undertaking third-party loading or unloading of ships within a specified period to notify the National Dock Labour Board. The National Dock Labour Board would then have to decide whether to recommend that the work should be classified as dock work—that is, brought within the new Dock Labour Scheme. In doing so, it would be required to consider whether the work was such that those employed on it needed training aptitudes and experience the same as, or similar to, those of registered dock workers, and also whether it required for its efficient performance the engagement of a permanent labour force. Thus very small ports where satisfactory arrangements could not be devised to sustain a permanent labour force, however small, would not be brought within the scheme.
If the Board made a recommendation that work at a particular port should be covered by the scheme, it would still be open for representations to be made to the Secretary of State about the Board's recommendations. At that stage these representations would be considered very carefully and, where relevant, account would be taken of the likely effect on the operation of the port, and also the possible implications for the employment situation in the area concerned.
I should like to refer to other extensions of the scheme. The main point that I want to emphasise—it needs to be emphasised because it is part of the misunderstanding which has given rise to the misrepresentations—is that there will be


no question of the Bill automatically extending the scheme to all work which is potentially within the scope of the Bill. Instead, under Clause 8 and Schedule 4, constitutional and orderly procedures are established to enable extension where this is appropriate.
In the case of cargo-handling work other than loading or unloading of seagoing ships under Clause 7, it would be entirely for the National Dock Labour Board to decide whether or not to propose to the Secretary of State that the work should be classified as dock work. It would have to do this in two stages. At the first stage, both the employer and the trade unions concerned would have to be informed that the Board had the possibility of classifying the work in mind and would have the opportunity to make representations to the Board.
The Board would then be required to consider whether there were prima facie grounds for recommending classification of the work as dock work. It would be able to decide that there were such grounds—except in the case of casual work—only if it seemed to the Board (a) that the work was done in substitution for work previously done by registered dock workers, or (b) that the work required training, aptitudes and experience the same as or similar to those of registered dock workers.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foot: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me to conclude this part of my speech, I shall gladly give way to him.
If the Board decided that there were such grounds, this alone would not enable it to recommend classification of the work as dock work. It would be required, having informed the employers, trade unions and others interested and sought further representations from them, to consider whether in terms of efficiency, manpower utilisation, job classification and the likely effect on industrial relations, so far as both the work under consideration and dock work generally were concerned, it would be generally sensible to classify the work as dock work. In the case of food storage, the Board would also have to consult the Minister of Agriculture

before deciding to make recommendations.
If the Board then decided to recommend classification to the Secretary of State, he would be required to consider whether this procedure had been adequately complied with and could, if he considered it necessary, ask the Board to look further at the matter. He would also, if he considered that there were labour relations questions involved, seek the advice of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service on these. Only then would an order extending the scheme be put to Parliament for approval.
Therefore, what the Bill seeks to do is to set out procedures to enable the scheme to be extended in situations where this made sense.

Mr. Ridley: I am sure that the House will be grateful to me for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman in his reading out of all that stuff. However, will he say why it is not proposed to consult the workers in any non-scheme port or area of non-dock work rather than the trade unions? Surely it is the workers who matter, and not the trade unions.

Mr. Foot: if the hon. Gentleman had been listening a little more carefully to what I have been reading and if he had studied the matter a little more carefully, he would appreciate that we have provisions for discussion of all the matters with workers in the dock industry and other workers concerned. The fullest possible provision is made for consultations with them. I am sure that it will be a great load off the hon. Gentleman's mind to learn that we have made such detailed provision for such careful consultation.
I come to what I have said previously to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). Perhaps I am dealing with the point that he has already made to me. I want to comment on how the extension would work in practice. In spite of the detailed procedures and safeguards, there are still considerable genuine anxieties in some quarters about the practical effect of the changes. I emphasise again that it is the actual individual application of the scheme which is the significant procedure; the wider legal scope has to be defined—as we have defined it in the Bill—to make these applications possible.
It is on those aspects of some of the matters that we have had consultations with the TUC and with several individual unions on the subject. As a result of those discussions we have agreed—although we believe that it confirms what was in the Bill already, and certainly confirms the intention of the Bill—that long-established warehousing, storage, packaging and cold storage operations, which are not related directly to work transferred from the docks and which are not connected with port operations, would most certainly not be classified as dock work and, therefore, subject to the new scheme. Maintenance personnel and other port service grades such as dock gatemen who have no direct relationship with cargo-handling are excluded from the Bill. I hope that this will satisfy my hon. Friend in advance.
We have had, as I have said, close consultations, as we promised we would, with those who would be affected, particularly the trade unions concerned. It is as a result of those consultations that we have had this exchange of letters and the discussions on these particular matters. What I have said is that when we come to the Committee stage, in order to make these matters clearer, more certain and more gratifying to my hon. Friend and others who wish to see these matters clarified further, if we can do this better by amendments we shall be glad to do so. However, the intention was the same as we have provided in the Bill. We believe that if representations are made to us for securing it better by amendments, we shall be glad to do so. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the undertakings in that sense, just as the representatives of the union of which he is a distinguished member have already accepted them, as other representatives have also done.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: What the Secretary of State is saying is very important, because it confirms what Mr. Jack Jones said in an interview, of which I have a report, on 19th November last year. The words were practically identical with the words that Jack Jones used on that occasion, when he said that
Long-established warehousing, storage, packaging and cold storage operations…are not likely to be included in the extension of the Dock Labour Scheme.

Are we to understand that the Secretary of State is saying that they will definitely be excluded by amendments to the legislation? There must be absolute clarity about this.

Mr. Foot: I understand the desire for clarity and the hon. Gentleman's disinterested desire for clarity. I am only too eager to satisfy him. If he had heard what I said a few minutes ago, he would have heard that I said that they would not be included in the scheme. I also said that I believed that the Bill as it stood made that clear. However, I repeat that if further amendments are required in order to secure that certainty is established in such cases, we shall be perfectly prepared to have amendments for that purpose. However, although that is the situation, it is not a reason for misrepresenting the whole Bill, as has been the case in many quarters. This has always been our intention, and I underline that.
The Bill provides safeguards for those employed on work which is classified as dock work. Briefly, under Clause 10, they would first be placed on an "extension register", where they would, under Clause 12, retain all their existing statutory employment protection, including the right not to be unfairly dismissed, and, after a period which would vary from case to case would, if still doing the work, go on to the main register—that is, become fully registered dock workers.
That provision fulfils the undertaking which was given long ago by myself in reply to a Written Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) way back in July last year, when I said,
I am aware that anxieties are being expressed by some employees who fear that they might lose their jobs. Their continued employment will, however, be safeguarded by our proposals for legislation and it is no part of our intention that their jobs should be put at risk."—[Official Report, 22nd July 1975: Vol. 896, c. 128.]
That has always been the Government's intention. That is what we have in the Bill, as we believe. If further amendments are required for the purpose, we shall certainly be prepared to examine them. However, I repeat that the suggestions that workers will be pushed out of their jobs—in the kind of extravagant language used by the right hon. Member


for Lowestoft—are grossly misleading. If the right hon. Member for Lowestoft were believed—I am happy to believe that he will not be—it would cause great difficulties and ructions in dockland.

Mr. Torney: I apologise again for intervening in my right hon. Friend's speech, but I should like him to clarify one matter. He mentioned cold storage. I am sure he is aware that in many cold stores 80 per cent. of the goods are home-produced. Will the Dock Labour Scheme be extended to them when only 20 per cent. of the goods are imported?

Mr. Foot: If my hon. Friend reads the Bill he will discover the cases where it will and will not apply. I believe that almost all my hon. Friend's fears are groundess. However, if his fears remain, one of the purposes of the Committee stage in the House of Commons is to clarify the points of concern. We shall seek to do so.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Foot: I have given way a great deal and I do not propose to give way again, because it is perfectly proper that other hon. Members should take part in the debate.
Any responsible Government faced with the situation in the docks over the past three or four years would have had to prepare action. Indeed, 1970 is a critical date. At that time the then Conservative Government pushed the Bristow Report back into the pigeon-hole but, according to a report in The Times, they were preparing a new committee of inquiry to look into the whole matter. That inquiry was never set up. However, there was an inquiry following the serious strikes. An investigation was carried out by the Jones-Aldington Committee and many of its recommendations were along the same lines as our proposals, although many of them were never implemented.
The reason why this is a matter of great importance was clear the other day when I received a deputation from the CBI, whose representatives expressed great anxiety and concern about this matter. I asked them what was their alternative. It was that we should set up an inquiry. I do not know whether they

visited the Government of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in 1970 and asked them why they did not set up an inquiry, but that was the time to do it, especially if the Government of the day were tearing up the Bristow Report, or, at any rate, abandoning it. However, although the Conservatives ditched the Bristow Report they made its author a judge. I suppose that that was compensation. He was certainly a most distinguished lawyer.
The Conservative Government did not take proper account of the Bristow Report, and that was partly why we had two massive dock strikes. That is what we had to take into account and that is why we have to try to solve the problem. It is no good saying now that the way to solve the problem is to have another inquiry. That is even more true when the suggestion comes from those who disregarded the inquiries which have been carried out. I have been made extremely aware of that situation from my visits to dockland during the past year or so. I asked the dockers what they thought about another inquiry. They said "Heavens!" I am sure that in response to the suggestion of another inquiry to settle this problem we would get a horse laugh from London to Liverpool, to Lowestoft and to Loch Lomond. A more ridiculous proposition could not be made.
The Government have made up their minds that we shall not have another inquiry. We have had consultations with all the people concerned, but eventually Governments have to make a choice on these matters. The obligation upon us was made all the greater because one of the most famous inquiries which took place, in 1920, reported that the evil system of casual labour in the docks should be torn up by the roots. It did not end for 47 years. What is the use now of another inquiry? The Government say that we should make up our minds to solve the problem and that we have a right to talk about industrial relations.
The right hon. Member for Sidcup was let off very lightly in these matters for years when he was Prime Minister. He smiles now but he could not smile when he had the biggest dock strike, the worst industrial relations and more days lost


in industrial disputes under his premiership than in any time in British history. In the docks the situation was perhaps worst of all.
We are determined to solve the problems which the Conservatives did not attempt to solve. That is why this House should give a Second Reading to the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): The Question is, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. James Prior.

Mr. John Stonehouse: May I ask the Minister a question?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have proposed the Question. I call Mr. James Prior.

Mr. Stonehouse: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend gave way to me.

Mr. Foot: If my right hon. Friend wishes to speak, I shall be glad to give way to him as long as the right hon. Member for Lowestoft will accept my apologies.

Mr. Stonehouse: I have listened carefully to every word of the Minister's speech. Although we have had clear explanations about the conditions for dock workers and the need to protect them and the other trade unionists who might be involved in the Bill, we have not heard the Secretary of State refer at any stage during his speech to the interests, especially the long-term interests, of the consumers. Is there any justification for the Bill in terms of securing better efficiency in marketing, and will it reduce prices to the consumer?

Mr. Foot: Yes, I believe that one of the best contributions we can make to assist the position of the consumer—I am as concerned about this matter as is any hon. Member—is to improve industrial relations in the docks. I do not accept, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stone-house) will not accept—at least, I hope he will not accept—the wild accusations which have been bred in many quarters about great additions to cost and so on. That is a lot of scaremongering nonsense

which could be based solidly only on the ground that dockers' conditions are far better than those of other workers. That is not so. Their wages and so on are not superior in many cases to those of many other workers. This point has never been properly argued. It is part of the "scare" against the Bill.
We have a right to speak to the country on this subject because we are establishing better industrial relations. It takes a long time and requires patience. It also requires a Government who will make up their mind and not shirk the issues which face the country.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. James Prior: I sometimes find it hard to make up my mind whether the right hon. Gentleman is better when he is reading or when he is simply getting back into his old form of blabber. He certainly ended his speech on the subject of labour relations with a blethering attack on the Conservative Party which was totally unjustified. If the right hon. Gentleman does not recognise what has improved the strike record in British industry so much in the past few months, he does not recognise anything. Perhaps he does not even know the figures of unemployment and the fear of unemployment throughout the country at present which make people far more concerned about keeping their jobs than about anything else.
It would be far better if the right hon. Gentleman did less attacking of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this subject and paid more attention to trying to get extra jobs. I shall seek to show during the course of my speech that the right hon. Gentleman's efforts will do nothing but destroy jobs and create further unemployment.
The right hon. Gentleman has made a certain amount of play to his hon. Friends about what actually is the cargo-handling area and what will be affected by the Bill. He said that if the Government had not got it right they would discuss it in Committee and try to remedy the faults. However, he did not give any proper assurance to his hon. Friends. If all those warehouses and cold stores about which there are considerable worries are excluded from the Bill, there is no purpose in having the Bill because it will not achieve what the dockers want.


What the dockers are interested in, as we all know, is getting extra jobs. If those extra jobs are not available from the cold stores and the warehouses, the dockers are being conned. If, on the other hand, as I suspect, the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to write proper safeguards into the Bill, in the way that his hon. Friends are asking, his hon. Friends are being conned, as are a great many people in the warehousing and cold storage industries. We shall therefore need to examine much more fully the right hon. Gentleman's words and what he intends to do in Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about going down to the docks. It is a pity that on his visits there he did not talk to people other than dockers. If he had taken the trouble to talk to shop stewards and local union officials in the warehousing, cold storage and road transport industries, he might have got a very different picture from the one he presented this afternoon. It is little short of a scandal that the right hon. Gentleman has been down and talked to the blue and the white unions but that on no occasion has he talked to any of the other people at dock level who are concerned with this measure.
As for his consultations, I know that a lot of people have been to see him. But he has not listened and he certainly has not acted on anything they have told him. I do not remember in the time that I have been in this House a Bill which has aroused more anger and more annoyance. There is opposition to it within the unions and within the Labour Party, and it is opposed by every other single interest concerned with the commerce or industry of the country.
We notice that the Bill should have come up for Second Reading before Christmas but that it was put off. We have heard about the negotiations, the nods and the winks given behind the scenes, designed to get Labour Members into the Lobby or the unions into line behind the Bill. That was a thoroughly disreputable way of handling the Bill and the Secretary of State, who claims to be a great parliamentarian, has fallen down sadly on his responsibilities.
The dockers are a proud and independent lot. They are given to much

abuse and to much abusing. I have done my share of it in the House, and I am prepared to say that in the last debate on dockland I quoted some figures which were wrong. The comparison I used between London and the Continent was wrong and I should like to apologise to the dockers. Our dockers have good and bad records. We are all concerned to improve throughput and efficiency and to keep our ports free from strife—

Mr. Ernest Fernyhough: The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to apologise for having given the wrong figures in the last debate. Will he now give the right figures?

Mr. Prior: No, because that would not be relevant to the debate. I will not go into that this afternoon. The figures were given to me in good faith and I used them in good faith. They dealt with the tonnage handled by a gang in London compared with tonnage handled by a gang in Antwerp, and they reflected unfairly on the British dockers.
We need to understand the past and the emotions and prejudices of the dockers if we are to look forward to the better days we all want. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the book called "Dockers" by Mr. David Wilson who, sadly, died a few months ago. I commend the book to any hon. Member because it is a good and fair record of the dock industry. There is a verse in it from a character called Patchy, of Liverpool, which sums up pretty accurately the emotions of the dockers and the way they have felt about their conditions. It reads:
Forty years I've served you without a word of thanks,
Sweated, toiled the whole long day in freighters, barges, tanks,
You've made millions from my body, even Deakin can't deny,
And all I get when I am old is Die, you—,die.
I am leaving out one of the words because I heard Mr. Speaker say this afternoon that he did not like swear words being used. That gives some indication of the strong feelings which exist in the docks.
In the last 20 years, with the end of decasualisation and with dockers becoming a well-paid and privileged group, through technological change, chiefly by the development of the container, the number of dockers has about halved. At


the moment there is perhaps a surplus of 5,000 dockers, and that number is likely to increase by another 3,000 to 4,000 by the end of the decade. While the numbers of dockers has been falling, about 100,000 jobs have been lost in distribution and transport, many of them in the dock area. The figures I have seen suggested for the period 1961–71 show that as many as 21,000 jobs were lost in the industry in Poplar and Stepney alone. So there has been a decline not just in the docks but in the areas surrounding the docks too.
Two great issues are involved which were mentioned by the Secretary of State. First, the dockers are the only group of workers who have absolute registration. This registration is jealously guarded and handed down and has sought to preserve dockers' jobs in a rapidly changing environment. No other group has enjoyed this concept, which is quite plainly out of date. Railway drivers cannot claim that when their jobs go they can become bus drivers; farm workers in the same position would not claim to become tractor drivers. But now the dockers can claim other people's work if they lose their own jobs. This is bound to lead to trouble because it involves the definition of dock work. Already this has been a source of discontent. Whatever the new authority or the Secretary of State may decide, if this Bill is passed the problems of definition will still be there.
The changes and the modernisation in industry have been immense. The ship owners discovered that since a ship spends 60 per cent. of its time in port it would pay them to spend far more money on port handling arrangements, and that is what has been happening. The use of the container enables one man to do the work of 10. It enables work to be done miles away from the docks. It leads to the creation of container ports away from the traditional docks, and there are many logical reasons for that. Convenience, lack of congestion and modern warehousing have all led to the move away from the traditional dock. With this continuing change the clock cannot be put back, and it would be wrong to try to do that.
That is the underlying reason why this is a bad Bill. At best it would provide but a temporary respite from the inexorable pressure which the dockers will face.

The bitterness they will feel when they know they have been conned makes it all the more undesirable to proceed with the Bill. That is one of the reasons why there should be a proper governmental inquiry into the docks.
The truth is that there has not been an inquiry since the Devlin Report of 1966–67. The other inquiries have been unofficial and not of great depth. The inquiries undertaken by Bristow, Jones-Aldington and ACAS have dealt either with specific docks or have not been impartial. We now require an impartial inquiry. Conditions in the docks are quiet, trade is slack and unemployment is a vista which the dockers deeply fear. I believe that this is a moment when an impartial inquiry could get at all the facts.
When the Secretary of State said that in 1967 Devlin took the view that the Dock Labour Scheme would continue, I think he was underestimating the enormous changes that there would have to be in the succeeding 10 years. We have a major and fundamental objection to the Bill because we believe that the whole idea of dock work being a registered title, along with an extension of the dock scheme, must be wrong in present circumstances.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever changes there may have been and whatever changes there may be, there will be conventional cargoes to handle for some time to come, and changes in the arrival of ships? Therefore, dock work will have to even out the peaks and slumps in the arrival of ships, making some scheme necessary with the inherent characteristics of that which is now before us.

Mr. Prior: I shall turn to that point later. I do not doubt that there will have to be some proper arrangements for employment which is not casual. I am absolutely certain about that.
We are now setting up the extension register. What happens if part of an establishment—for example 25 per cent.—is deemed to be dock work and there is a situation in which some members of the establishment are on the extension register, some members are moving on to the main register and there are others who


are not on any register, being straightforward union members? There may well be some who will be waiting to know whether they should go on to the register. I do not believe that we can run industrial relations in that way. It is bound to create strife.
How can we have men working in one warehouse who are on the full dock register, being paid and contracted for under the conditions of that register, when there are others under the extension register who are waiting to know whether they will go on to the full register and others, who are perhaps members of the General and Municipal Workers' Union or USDAW, who are being organised under totally different sets of conditions and rules? There may well be others who are in none of those categories. There may well be four categories of men working in the same warehouse. I do not believe that we shall ever achieve industrial peace in those circumstances.
We are also faced with the problem that there will be some dockers who have left the register and gone into the cold stores and warehouses and who will come back on to the extension register under the new definition of dock work, and then on to the permanent register, having received compensation for leaving the register, at great expense to employers and the country. Will they return to the register? I do not believe that that is in any way a possible solution. Conflict and strife are bound to be inherent in that situation. Immediate past experience of trying to introduce registered dockers into container depots has been extremely unhappy.
One of my reasons for not liking the scheme is that I do not believe that the Jones-Aldington proposals, however well intended, can work in the present dock situation. We know that the objective of the dockers, whether they be white or blue, is to get into such places as container depots and to take work away from tuners. The "blue" union wrote in The Port on 4th June 1975:
Some method must be found to put registered men into these places and to phase out the men currently employed there.
Let us not be under any illusions about their intentions.
Labour Members who are sponsored by trade unions and who know the facts will be deluding themselves if they do not recognise the dockers' intentions. Certainly the warehousemen realise their intentions. Mr. Brian Dooley, á shop steward of the Transport and General Workers' Union, has said:
If this becomes law, there will not enough policemen in the whole of Essex prevent us stopping the dockers coming here and taking our jobs. The workers of this area will unite to stop them by hook by crook.
I do not think that union leaders or the right hon. Gentleman have considered carefully enough the strong objections that exist among other groups of workers about dockers taking away their jobs. The dockers went into Chobham Farm and pushed out those who were already there. That was totally contrary to the Jones-Aldington proposals. They pushed them out and they are now doing what they term menial jobs. This has so aroused the anger of other workers that on this occasion they will not put up with it.

Mr. Ron Thomas: rose—

Mr. Prior: No. I shall give way presently to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
There has been a terrible underestimate of the industrial problems that this measure will cause. It will not bring peace to the docks. In fact, it could bring about an outbreak of war such as we had this time last year. That trouble was caused by the dockers trying to push their way into container depots and cold stores.

Mr. John Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman has honestly admitted that he made a mistake when he last spoke about the docks, and he is in danger of making the same mistake again. When talking about registered workers we are concerned not only with dockers but with other workers such as seamen and fishermen. There are twice as many seamen and fishermen as dock workers under the registration scheme.
The right hon. Gentleman says that he does not think men can work in ware-


houses under different forms of registration. This is already happening in my contituency, where people doing the stuffing and stripping work, by agreement, are in different categories of work. They are doing the stuffing and stripping and they are getting the dock worker's rate. It is not the dockers who are doing that work, even though the dockers have seen their labour force reduced greatly. The dock rate of pay has been negotiated. That is what the dockers have requested. They have not taken other people's jobs. They are working quite happily and there are good industrial relations.

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman's experience is not that which is shared by the majority of union men now working in container depots and cold stores. They know what will happen. They know that there will be enormous pressure to push them out of their jobs. They know that the manning levels and restrictive practices which are part of the dockers' stock in trade will result in costs increasing and jobs being lost altogether. They are not prepared to see that happen. They are right to represent to their unions that they will not put up with that sort of situation. I hope that they continue to fight.
It would have been very easy for the Opposition to whip up support on this issue. In fact, we have not done so. If the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had been in a similar position, they would have been taking a very different view. They know that only too well.

Mr. Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is one category of dockers who are very much against the Bill—namely, those employed in the small ports? The dockers employed in Colchester realise that those who come under the scheme will be put out of business, thus creating unemployment. The dockers in the small ports are very much against what the Government are proposing.

Mr. Prior: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. It is bad enough that the scheme should be extended to a five-mile corridor and beyond, but what is worse is the proposal to take over a

great many ports and to bring them under the scheme, which is not what the dockers or anybody connected with those ports require.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) sent me details about the proposals for Montrose, including a resolution passed unanimously by the dockers in his constituency to the effect that they did not want to become registered dockers under the scheme. They also point to the extra cost that will be incurred if the scheme is extended to non-scheme ports and they emphasise that those extra costs will have the effect of pricing us out of the market and causing further unemployment.
We strongly object to a proposal which in order to deal with 357 casual dockers out of a total of about 3,000 employed in non-scheme ports, and comprising only 1 per cent. of the total of all registered dockers, will have the effects I have out-lined. This is another reason why we regard this as a disastrous Bill. In any case, the Minister has powers to extend the scheme to non-scheme ports if he so wishes. Why does he not forget this wretched Bill and proceed via the provisions of the 1946 Act?

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that if the scheme is adopted the port of Perth will close? This will mean that goods and fertilisers will become infinitely more expensive. Will not this contravene the Government's policy of trying to keep down food prices?

Mr. Prior: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. We all know that costs will rise enormously. The British Importers Confederation says that the figure will be as high as £150 million. But we do not need to go in for conjecture because we can compare the costs of running a cold store run under dock labour and a store outside the dock labour area. The figures are available and we can obtain an exact comparison.
The average figure in the country as a whole outside the dock scheme is £6 per ton for goods in and out of cold store. In cold stores within the dock area and run under dock labour the figure is £12 per ton—exactly double. The present figure at Southampton is £11·25, whereas at


Liverpool Alexandra Dock the figure is £6·30—in other words, it is almost half as expensive within the scheme as outside it. The housewives will pay the price and the dockers will call the tune.
It is absolute hypocrisy for the Labour Government to allow the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection to say in this House that she is seeking to reduce prices when she knows that the Bill is bound to increase them. The right hon. Lady has been given the facts by all those connected with the food industry. She knows what will happen. But the Government's only answer is to suggest that this measure will bring industrial peace to dockland.
If we examine the record of strikes between 1964 and 1970, we do not get the impression that the Labour Government have done any better than anybody else.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) put forward figures that we know can be dubious. He has just thrown out some more figures which have been heavily cheered by his hon. Friends, but which, on investigation after this debate, may once again prove to be "phoney". I ask the right hon. Gentleman a straight question. Since he has given figures of cold stores under the scheme, will he now give the figures for the Union Cold Stores—the epitome of private enterprise owned by the Vestry combine and operated under a registered scheme? What are the figures there? If he does not know them, why does he not know them?

Mr. Prior: On many occasions I have been given figures and have been specifically asked not to give their source. One of the sad things about representations made during the passage of the Bill by union members and also by others is that they are often offered with the comment "Please do not quote me because one does not know what this will mean for our families or our businesses". Therefore, I am not prepared to state from where my figures come. However, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury wants to know, I shall make certain that he is informed by the people who have given them to me. They are absolutely stark, accurate figures.

Mr. Mellish: rose—

Mr. Prior: I have not given way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mellish: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am surprised at the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. We all know the rules. If a right hon. or hon. Member who is in possession of the Floor does not give way, others must resume their seats.

Mr. Prior: When I have done the House the courtesy of apologising for certain figures I was given in good faith, I think that Government Ministers should at least have the decency to accept that apology. [Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury does not even have the courtesy to take that step now. I have no intention of giving way to him again.
It is not surprising that the hostility to the Bill shown by employers and employees alike will dry up investment. No firm will incur capital expenditure in any cargo-handling zone. This can be extended by order anywhere. No work will go on in a warehouse or cold storage while uncertainty exists. We all know that the dockers will constantly urge extensions to the scheme. Once they know that the scheme can be extended, they will press the National Dock Labour Board to make extensions to the scheme. Stores within the EEC will move in to take advantage of any shortfall in accommodation that we cannot provide. Already the Northern European ports are beginning to expand because they think that they will be able to take up the trade that we are likely to lose.
We must bear in mind that a great increase in trade in recent years has taken place because of the roll-on roll-off system. It is curious that the NUR roll-on roll-off ports are excluded from the Bill. Why? Why have they not been brought within the scheme? There must be only one explanation—namely, that the NUR has proved too strong for the Government and has been left out, whereas USDAW and the General and Municipal Workers' Union have been brought in. Why have those ports not been left outside the scheme in the same way as the NUR ports have been excluded? [An HON. MEMBER: "Because of their contribution to Labour funds."] It may well


be through their contributions to Labour funds.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I welcome the fact that British Railway ports are excluded from the scheme, but is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the smaller ports, especially those near the railway ports, will feel unjustly treated because they have not been dealt with in the same way?

Mr. Prior: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not blame Colchester and other ports for feeling angry at what has happened. There is no logic or excuse for the present situation.
Those ports were left out of the original take-over bid because they were regarded as passenger ports and not commercial ports. But they have developed very successfully as roll-on roll-off ports, and if there is any logic in the scheme they should be included.
Capital for expansion and development will be concentrated overseas, so the scheme will discourage employment and investment at home. The Secretary of State has seen the unemployment figures double since he took office. The Bill will not help employment. In fact, it will do exactly the reverse.
The right way to look at these matters is to consider dock labour and the ports together. Statutory ports control three-quarters of the dock force and there is no problem there. The National Dock Labour Board is merely sitting in the middle between another statutory authority and the men. There ought to be a proper inquiry to see how we can bring the ports and the dockers together in a new situation to avoid some of the problems confronting us at the moment.
The whole atmosphere has changed since decasualisation of the docks between 1965 and 1967. We now have legislation on unfair dismissals and redundancy as well as the Employment Protection Act. The situation for dockers is different now. There is a surplus of dockers and the problem needs to be dealt with sensibly and reasonably. The right way would be a freeze on the register, with new, selective severance schemes.
We must remove the strife from dockland. I do not believe that the Secre-

tary of State's measures will bring any peace. By extending the register, he is fanning the dying embers of a scheme which has outlived its usefulness. It would be better by far for the contribution from the Government and employers and the co-operation of the dockers themselves, many of whom are fed up with past conflicts and have no wish for more, to be directed towards achieving a better set-up. The whole country would then benefit.
The Bill is part of the price of the social contract. It is the Secretary of State's anti-social contract. There is no peace in the Bill, only trouble and disillusionment. It adds one more weight to the burden which is dragging our nation down. The Government deserve to be defeated tonight. Pray God they get their deserts.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: In one sense we have already voted on this Bill. At the conclusion of the debate on the Queen's Speech there was a Liberal amendment opposing any extension of the Dock Labour Scheme. Behind the Liberals in the Lobby that night were all the other Opposition parties—the Tories, the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists and the Unionists. There is a mixed bag if you like. [Interruption.] I represent the most important cargo dock in the country and the second largest terminal port in Europe. I have been associated with the work of dockers for nearly 30 years.
Why was there this unusual unity among Opposition parties and the great enthusiasm to defeat a Bill which had not even been published at that time? It is partly explained by a very astute propaganda campaign against dockers. Opposition to this Bill is not merely opposition to the Government. It is also opposition to the dockers and I shall prove it.
This campaign was initiated by an organisation called the Aims for Freedom and Enterprise. It is certainly enterprising, though one could recommend certain other aims to it, one of which would be the pursuit of truth. I have a pamphlet issued by this organisation. It is anonymous, which is not surprising because no one would want to claim responsibility for this miserable little tract. No one with any knowledge of


the docks would be taken in by it, but it is the basis of everything one reads in the newspapers against the Bill. It was quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) though he did not tell us he was quoting from it.

Mr. Cyril Smith: It has been quoted widely in the Press.

Mr. Delargy: The whole campaign stated here. The pamphlet was sent to hon. Members in good time for the vote on the Liberal amendment. It gave them four or five days to acquaint themselves with spurious arguments to use against the Government's proposals. A copy was sent to every hon. Member, every newspaper and many other institutions and people. It is still being quoted today. It is not a very good pamphlet. In fact, of all the wild and crashing accusations of thought I have ever encountered, it is the worst. It is a string of allegations such as those we have just heard front the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lowestoft. There is no evidence or proof of any of these allegations and accusations. All the accusations are anonymous.
The opening sentence of the document reads:
Outside the gates the ominous cry went up; The dockers are coming'.
What an appalling statement. It speaks of dockers as if they were some armed terrorists descending on a defenceless village.
On the next page it says:
Britain's 32,416 registered dockers are the most feared group of workers in the country.
Feared by whom?
The pamphlet goes on to accuse dockers of causing conflict, thieving, skiving, violence, being paid for work they have not done and overmanning—just the statements we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lowestoft, with the same lack of evidence or proof. That is the sort of argument we constantly hear.
When the anonymous author of this pamphlet tries to substantiate his statements, he reminds me once again of the right hon. Gentleman, who quotes figures but is under some secrecy of the confessional not to say from where the figures come. I do not know why he should be so coy. There is no confidentiality about

supplying figures to Opposition spokesmen for parliamentary debates. What is wrong with giving sources?
A similar absence of sources is apparent in the pamphlet. For example, in speaking of the "uncertainty of the Bill" the following phrases are used: "as one director said", "a warehouse manager reports", "a third manager recounts", "a warehouse director says", "a director reports", "a manager adds"; and so it goes on. That is all extremely interesting, but one suspects that the anonymous author of the pamphlet is a liar. One suspects that he is making up these quotations, unless he is under the same sacramental obligation of secrecy as is the right hon. Member for Lowestoft not to disclose his sources. The pamphlet is a long diatribe against British working men, more vicious than anything I have read in my life time.
I detect in the attitude and the speech made by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft undertones of that same disregard for dockers. Opposition members will not say so openly in the House, but one knows that this is what they feel.
When I spoke earlier about the unanimous opposition to the proposals—which had not then been published—I asked why there should be such opposition. Hardly any Opposition member knows anything about docks or has ever met a docker. Yet we have had this determined attack on the Bill. As we heard in the television broadcast last night made by the right hon. Gentleman, the Bill has been attacked more than has any other Bill presented during this Session.

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is talking arrant nonsense. A large number of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, of whom I happen to be one, have dockers in their constituencies, have regular contact with them and know just as much as the hon. Gentleman claims to know what they are thinking.

Mr. Delargy: That may be so. I do not know the hon. Gentleman's constituency or how many dockers he has in his constituency, but it is a fair bet that none of them voted for him.
I was touched to hear the right hon. Member for Lowestoft speak in defence of the unions. Two years ago tonight we were fighting a General Election. That


election was fought on one main slogan—

Mr. Prior: "Back to Work with Labour".

Mr. Delargy: Precisely, but the issue on which the General Election was called—it was not Labour which called it but the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—was an attack upon the unions. Throughout the land Tory candidates were saying "The question is, who governs this country, the TUC or Parliament?" Yet now the Opposition are posing as the shining champions of trade unionism. That is remarkable. It adds to the gaiety of nations, but it is not serious politics.
There are many positive reasons why the Bill should receive our support. Many have already been given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and others will be given during the debate. I conclude by giving a negative reason why the Bill should receive our support. During all the discussions on the consultative document and since the Bill has been published, in all the controversies in the newspapers and elsewhere, I have not heard one valid, convincing argument against it. Certainly, we did not hear any good argument against it from the right hon. Member for Lowestoft. I am glad that the Bill will receive a Second Reading tonight.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) speaks with profound knowledge of the dock industry and of dockers, and the House always listens to him with respect. From time to time he falls into the error of believing that only hon. Members who represent dock-working seats or who have a background of the dock industry should speak in the House on matters concerning the docks, but what happens in the docks affects us all, whichever constituency we represent and from whatever part of the country we come. The hon. Gentleman's speech was depressing. The only policy being put forward by the hon. Gentleman and the Government is the Bill, and this does not measure up to the problems of this great but declining industry. The problem is that it is a classically declining industry. On the Continent, with new ports and new invest-

ment the dock industry is an expanding industry. In Holland there are new training schemes for young men who want to go into the industry. Yet what do we do? We respond in the most negative and defensive way by digging in. I hope that the Bill will not receive a Second Reading. If it does, we shall take one more step towards a museum economy.
It is well known that Mr. Jack Jones has been one of the proponents of the Bill. Many different motives have been attributed to him, but I believe that his motivation is very simple. He has witnessed the rapid decline of the industry in which he started his working life. When Mr. Jack Jones started as a docker more than 125,000 people were employed in the dock industry. By the end of the war, by 1947, the number had fallen to 80,000. The last published figure is for December 1974, when there were 34,000 registered dockers. When the December 1975 figures are published, the number will probably be 30,000 or 31,000. The Dock Labour Board recognises that in that number there are probably 5,000 for whom there are not jobs. That is the measure of the problem.
I am the director of a company that has a distribution network, and it comes into everyday contact with the Dock Labour Board and dockers, with whom its relationship is harmonious. People who have been concerned in the industry like this have seen it decline more quickly than any other industry in Britain.
What should be the response to a problem of this sort, the regeneration of British industry? The response should certainly not be to dig in and build more barricades. The response, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said in his speech, ought to be to look not just at dock labour but at the whole problem of the ports and dock labour. We cannot just look at the dockers and not be concerned with where they work, the capitalisation of the ports, the need to give a stimulus to those ports which are expanding, and possibly helping to phase out those ports which the patterns of trade have left high and dry. I believe, therefore, that the Government should have a complete review, so that they can get a complete picture of both the reorganisation of the ports and, indeed, of dock labour.
In that review we have to ask the fundamental question which my right hon. Friend posed this evening: is the Dock Labour Scheme any longer needed or relevant? The Secretary of State for Employment said clearly "Yes". It was clearly needed in 1947; it was needed in the 1960s to see the end of the casual system of labour; but is it really needed today? After the Employment Protection Act, which has changed the position of many workers, is it any longer necessary to create a special type of protection for this group of workers? I am sure that that is the question many people in the country are asking.
However we respond to this enormous, massive, industrial change in this industry, and a rapidly declining industry at that, I am sure the solution is not to create a dockers' corridor by pushing back the waterfront. If we do that we shall be pushing back the restrictive practices of the waterfront five miles into the hinterland. It is not a Right-wing Tory view that there are restrictive practices. It has been well documented in the Rochdale Report, in the Devlin Committee Report, and lovingly by none other than Jack Dash in his book.
I cannot believe that the way to progress is to create this dockers' corridor. It is as if we were trying to solve a problem of the printing industry, another industry bedevilled by restrictive practices, by telling all provincial newspapers to adopt Fleet Street manning levels tomorrow. That would put virtually every provincial newspaper into the same difficulty as the main national newspapers.
By using this device of the dockers' corridor the Government have got into a complete muddle. The Government said "Five miles from the sea", so the parliamentary draftsman said "If you say that, you will have to define the sea." Therefore, for the first time in any parliamentary Bill in the whole of our history, we have a definition of the sea. In Clause 4(4) the parliamentary draftsmen have come up with the definition that
'the sea' includes any area submerged at mean high water".
Dr. Johnson did it rather better. He said that the sea is
the water opposed to the land; anything rough and tempestuous".

Certainly there is no doubt that the passage of the Bill, and its application if it is passed—I think there will be a long constitutional process at the end of this Bill—will lead to rough and tempestuous conclusions.
The hon. Member for Thurrock said that he had not heard one good reason against the Bill. One powerful reason, and the gravest objection, is that the Bill is likely to increase demarcation disputes in the dockers' corridor. This, as the House well knows, has been one of the areas which have created a great deal of dispute in our dockland. There are disputes as to who does what, who lifts off, who puts it on the trolley, who pushes it into the warehouse and handles it out of the warehouse. It was Ernest Bevin who recognised this. The demarcation disputes have gone on continuously and are still going on today in the ports. They have caused enormous trouble for the Transport and General Workers' Union in sorting them out. Ernest Bevin said that for this very reason organising in the docks was enough to break the heart of any trade union official. Therefore I believe that all the difficulties of definition, and disputes about who does what, will be intensified.
I do not believe that the Secretary of State this afternoon, in trying to appease the USDAW members, the NUR or the General and Municipal Workers, gave any assurance that was worth while. He said that in Committee, if it is necessary to put in other checks and balances to increase the area of exemptions, this will be done. I ask him to give one clear undertaking. As a result of this Bill, with the creation of a dockers' corridor, and allowing dockers the right to take jobs in the corridor, will the Minister give the undertaking that no one presently employed will be made redundant? That provision could be put into the Bill in Committee. That is the test of the Secretary of State's guarantee. If, in a situation like this, a warehouseman is made redundant in the dockers' corridor, he will not get redundancy pay. He only gets it if the job is eliminated—not if the job is continued and somebody else does it.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): In view of the undertaking for which the hon. Gentleman has asked, is he able to


point to any provision in the Bill that would enable the Dock Labour Board to make anyone redundant in warehouses, cold storage depots or any other depots in order to make a job for a registered dock worker? The hon. Gentleman's whole point is based on a misconception of the Bill.

Mr. Baker: I ask the right hon. Memmer to realise that this sort of demarcation dispute is going on virtually daily in ports at this moment, and it is left to those who make freely negotiated local arrangements to resolve the problem. The Bill is creating a statutory right which does not at present exist. My contention is that this is bound to lead to demarcation disputes. The jobs will be defined in the Bill, and then the dockers will demand them, after they have been defined.
One of the basic misconceptions behind the Government's thinking on the Bill is that, with the decline of job opportunities in the docks, the jobs have moved into the hinterland. The reality, as we all know from containerisation and roll-on/roll-off, is that the jobs have physically and literally disappeared altogether. That is what the Government ought to recognise.
Turning very briefly to the future—one does not wish just to be negative—I believe that two things are necessary. First, I think that the part of the Jones-Aldington proposals about special severance should be resurrected. In the last six months of 1972 and the first two months of 1973, as hon. Members will recollect, there were introduced special severance terms whereby dockers could get about £4,000, paid for by the Government. In fact, 8,389 dockers took advantage of that scheme, at a cost of £30 million. I believe that was a wise and realistic proposal introduced by the previous Conservative Government, and that another scheme like that is needed in order to face the reality of the overstocked register.
Secondly on the positive side I make this suggestion. Let the Transport and General Workers' Union devise arrangements whereby jobs could be reclassified as dockers' work. But this should be done locally, and freely negotiated within the union. There is joint consultative machi-

nery for this, as the Secretary of State for Employment pointed out. It goes on every day, and quite satisfactorily. Let this be done by voluntary agreement rather than by statute. The Secretary of State has spent a great deal of time since February 1974 in telling us that the law has no role at all in industrial relations, yet he is using the law to interfere in a very delicate area of industrial relations. Therefore, my suggestion is that the various parts of the Transport and General Workers' Union should be allowed to make their own arrangements voluntarily as to what should be defined as port work. This would make the Labour movement responsible, as the Labour movement should be, for defining workers' rights and deciding their role.
The industry is declining. It is a classic case of a rapidly declining industry. We do not face reality in this sort of situation by trying to extend the practices that have been associated with that decline into other parts of industry and other areas of the country. If we do that tonight, and if the Bill becomes an Act and is implemented, we are certainly on the way to a museum economy.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: I want to come back to the purpose of the Bill, because it appears to me that much of what has been said by Opposition Members has strayed far away from the intention and spirit of the Bill. In order to do that, it is necessary to establish, first, whether the Bill is necessary and, secondly, if it is, what are the reasons for it.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the intention of the Bill was to offer greater security of employment to dock workers and, with it, to bring peace to the industry. As a member of the National Committee of the Docks Section of the Transport and General Workers' Union—I do not declare an interest, because I am not a registered dock worker; I am one of the ancillary workers who are generally imagined to be the arch-enemies of registered dock workers—I became acquainted with the major problem which developed from the 1960s.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) was right to object


to the remarks made by Aims of Industry about the Bill. The misrepresentations, and in some cases absolute lies, have been designed to strike fear into the hearts of workers about their jobs and their security. The suggestion is that the Bill constitutes a threat to the employment of people in warehousing and cold storage.
It has also been said that the Bill is intended to offer further protection to dock workers and to strengthen their opposition to the technological change which has taken place in their industry. We have heard a great deal about demarcation disputes an the docks. I know of none. Any disputes which exist between the various sections have been created by employers who have moved out of the docks industry, despite their assurances to the unions that they had no such intention, and set up their businesses outside the docks.
There is another factor involved here. We have to remember that we are, in the end, talking about men—the people who work in the docks industry. No mention has been made by Opposition Members of the security of employment of dock workers or of the contribution they have made to the country's economy in peace and in war. The Opposition talk is cold, clinical terms about a declining industry and about the need for fewer and fewer people in the industry. I worked in the industry for 29 years. I can tell the story of the decline of the British docks industry, and I can assure the House that it has nothing to do with registered dock workers.
Just over a decade ago the port of Liverpool employed 15,500 registered dock workers. Today that port employs 7,000 registered dock workers. During the same earlier period the port of London employed about 28,000 registered dock workers. Today the number is down to 11,000. Just on 40,000 or over 50 per cent. of the jobs have gone from the docks industry. That is the reality of the situation, and it is the essence of the problems of dock workers. No one on the Oposition Benches can discard responsibility for considering the dock worker when these dramatic changes have taken place in the industry.
The fact that the labour force of registered dock workers has been reduced by more than 50 per cent. is an indication that technological changes—roll-on/roll-off, containerisation, palletisation, bulk handling and the rest—have been accepted by dock workers as part of the modernisation of the industry. What the dock worker is not prepared to accept—and in my view he is completely justified—is that people who have made their profits over the years inside the docks industry and, in the process, milked the ports dry of profit should decide to fold their tents, leave the ports and seek greener pastures outside. In doing so, they affect the security of dock workers and put in danger the very docks industry itself.
Without the docks industry based on the National Dock Labour Board our docks would have been in tremendous difficulty for the past 30 or 40 years. The National Dock Labour Board created the first sense of organisation in the industry, and we should pay credit to its architect, Ernest Bevin. The experience which motivated him was not technological change in the industry. Ernest Bevin knew the way that dock workers lived and the conditions in which they worked, and he saw it as one of his rôles to end once and for all the almost animalistic method which people had in those days of hiring dock labour.
At that time, it was considered by Sir Albert Booth that £1 14s. a week was sufficient for a worker to keep his wife and family. When he was asked by Ernest Bevin whether he would be prepared to keep his own family on that amount, he replied "No, of course not. But do not blame me. Blame the system." That is an indication of the attitude of mind prevailing at that time. I am afraid that it still prevails today among Opposition Members. The words may have changed, but the basic argument of the Opposition today is their objection to the National Dock Labour Board. That underlies all the opposition to the Bill.
The National Dock Labour Board secured for dock workers a situation which gave them some degree of security of employment. It removed the casual nature of their employment. Since then the docks have gone through a number of dramatic changes. At one time, all that a docker needed to go to work was


a hook which he could buy for 3s. 6d. in a cellar shop along the dock road. On the quay was a hand bogie for his use. Today, men are driving straddle loaders and side loaders and using other equipment worth possibly £100,000 or £200,000. These are the men who, the Opposition say, are resisting change.
No objection has ever been raised by the unions to the door-to-door container system whereby manufacturers deliver their goods to the docks in containers which are stuffed at the point of production. The objection of the dockers is that dubious employers have set up bases in the highways and by-ways around dockland under working conditions which would be unacceptable to dock workers and other trade unionists. These bases receive cargoes from various sources which normally would come to the docks to be stuffed and loaded; they carry out this operation in their depots. When a dock worker waiting at Liverpool for wagons to come in sees containers going over his head and into the hold of a ship, he begins to ask where his work is and what he is supposed to be doing. He naturally feels alarmed about the future of his job and his employment security.
When this began, at the same time the temporary register in London was growing and we saw the beginnings of the pincer movement by employers in an attempt to split the unions over the National Dock Labour Board. The increase in the temporary register meant that men were receiving back pay but were unable to work when the very work that they were supposed to be doing in dockland was being moved elsewhere. Those who argue about consumer protection ought to realise that in such a situation the consumer is paying twice. He is paying dock workers who have no work, and he is also paying those who are doing the work in other places.
It was at that time, prior to 1972, that the dock workers decided that they were going to do something about their employment situation and their future. This was not an argument about pay. It was an argument about the preservation of jobs and, more important, the new generation of jobs that would be lost to the docks for ever. I do not accept the argument of Opposition Members in the sense that

the docks are a declining industry. It is a changing industry, and one of the reasons for many of the problems that have emerged today is that there has been no central control over what has been happening.
Ports like Merseyside and London, where huge capital investment programmes of £40 million to £50 million have been carried out, are left unused while we have allowed other ports in the United Kingdom to create new capacity in other parts of the country. That is the economics of insanity. These traditional ports have been left almost derelict. This folly follows a certain pattern as far as the capitalist economy is concerned, because, as we know in the North, there is nothing new in leaving obsolescence behind and creeping off to better things. The whole of industry in the North was left in that state from the Industrial Revolution onwards.
In that sense, therefore, nobody yet knows what changes may take place in Committee, but the Bill sets out clearly to bring back to the dock industry the security and the job opportunities that have been lost to it by the most vicious and ruthless methods. The argument about jobs being taken over by dock workers ought to be nailed here and now. It has never been mentioned, in the Jones-Aldington Report or in any of the reports seen since, that the intention of the Bill was a physical take-over by registered dock workers of work being performed by other workers at this time. That is in the imagination of those who will use any argument at all to contest and oppose the Bill.
The policy of the TGWU and the joint unions concerned was to extend registration. That is the approach they have had from the very outset, not to take over jobs but to seek to register jobs where they have gone out of dockland and have been taken away as employment opportunities.
What we are talking about, therefore, is creating a new generation of jobs for the docks industry. Obviously, while the Bill will not deal with all the problems existing in the docks industry, I believe that in practice, if its spirit and intention are carried out, it will bring about a situation where we can, first of all, remove from the minds of those who have them these misconceived ideas about what the Bill means and it will


be welcomed ultimately by other workers. It is welcomed by some of the workers who have been referred to today, because conditions in these places were improved from the time that registered dock workers went in. No reasonable worker would resent that kind of intervention in his working life.
I believe that the Bill takes a first step towards looking at our port transport industry in a realistic way and towards seeing that industry is given a real opportunity of competing with the European ports. Incidentally, argument has been made here about the efficiency of European ports. I did not hear mention of the amount of cross-subsidisation that occurs in European ports, to which they are alleged to be opposed. I believe that the Bill will be a first step towards creating sufficient confidence in the minds of dock workers and others to enable what I hope will be the next step to be taken, allowing the whole of the ports and dock industry to be brought into public ownership, which will mean in the future a really efficient, prosperous and thriving port and transport industry.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Smith: We have all listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden). Clearly, the speech that he has made comes from a deep knowledge of the docks and long experience of them. I am not exactly sure that his speech was concerned with the brotherhood of all workers as opposed to a section of the workers, but perhaps as I go on I may be able to develop that particular criticism, if it was one, of his speech.
May I assure the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) that my secretary has full instructions to put into the waste-paper basket anything that comes to me from Aims of Industry. I never read anything that comes from that organisation, and if the document mentioned were sent to me—I cannot deny that it was—I would like to assure the hon. Member that I certainly never read it and certainly would never think of it. The hon. Member spoke of it as being an attack on dock workers. I see it as a defence of workers. I see it is a defence of consumers, not as an attack on dockers.
I consider the Bill to be the most undesirable, doctrinaire piece of legislation brought before the House by the present Government. I agree with one newspaper which this morning called it a "rotten" Bill, because it is a rotten Bill. Earlier, the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) intervened and talked of "stuffing and stripping". I thought that that was advice which he was giving the Government about the Bill, because that is what they ought to do with it—strip it and stuff it. It is a Bill which is divisive not only on party lines—I accept that that is not particularly important—but on trade union lines, not merely as between different unions but within unions. If the Secretary of State doubts what I say, I can give him petitions signed by shop stewards of the TGWU, signed in one case by a branch secretary of that union. I am perfectly prepared to produce these. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) this morning received a petition from his constituency and I see that the first signature on it is followed by "Shop Steward, TGWU". It is dated 6th February.
It is no use pretending that all trade unionists are united behind the Bill, because they are not. Frankly, I doubt whether any of the assurances given by the Secretary of State this afternoon are likely to satisfy their anxieties. If the Government go on with the Bill, we must become suspicious of why they are doing so. What is the motivation? We all know that Mr. Jack Jones is docker-oriented. We know that he has assisted the Government very considerably and—if I may say so as one who voted for it—to his credit, on the wages policy. One can only wonder whether the Bill is a kind of reward for service rendered. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Thurrock for having pointed this out, and I can assure him that had he not done so, I certainly would have done, because I feel that it was to the credit of my party that it was a Liberal amendment to the Queen's Speech on this matter that registered the views of so many Members of the House.
I believe that if the piece of legislation now before the House proceeds it can only lead to higher dock levies, greater bureaucracy, more unemployment and a lack of security for thousands of workers.


There was a time when Labour supported the workers, but it now appears that it is not the party of the workers but is the party of the dock workers. I suggest to the Government that they ought to have regard to the opinion of the wider cross-section of workers which has been expressed to them.
I should have been much happier if, during his negotiations, the Secretary of State had been willing to meet representatives of organised groups of workers who had collected to oppose the Bill but who were not themselves dockers. I have a letter from the Minister on file declining to meet such a group. Not only did I try to appeal to him to meet them—I thought that I might give him a word of advice that it might be in the Government's own interests—but he was not prepared to do so.
Still trying to be brief myself, I wrote to Mr. Jack Jones to ask whether he would meet me so that I could convey to him the views expressed to me by many of his members. He cleverly shifted out of meeting me and did not even offer another officer of the union in his place. I am prepared to produce the correspondence if necessary.
I am not talking about six days or six weeks since: this was before June last year, when I was desperately striving to understand what the Bill was all about because of the many representations that I had been getting. I was impressed not by those from employers but by those from trade unionists, many of whom I have met.
On Saturday last, which was certainly after the Bill had been published, I happened to be in Grimsby for another purpose. I arrived at 3 p.m. and within two hours there were five shop stewards in my hotel room. I understand that they have already made representations to the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). I have seen the correspondence. I had to agree with the line he was taking—that they could not expect a member of the Cabinet to vote against the Government—but that does not alter the fact that the Secretary of State has had correspondence with his right hon. Friend on this matter and that the workers of Grimsby have expressed grave doubts to their Member.
I am fascinated by the ambiguity of the Government in industrial relations. It is not long since we had long debates about editorial rights and the freedom of the Press. Then, the Secretary of State argued that such things were better not settled by legislation but that the more we could keep industrial relations out of the courts the better. Today, he says that the reason for the Bill is the bad record of industrial relations, which should be put right legislatively. It is ambiguous of him to argue one way about one section of industry but another way about the docks.

Mr. Foot: I do not think that there is any inconsistency. During the discussions on all these matters we have said that, although the law has its place, it should be carefully considered in each instance. Since, however, the hon. Gentleman is giving all these sinister reasons for the introduction of the Bill, would he comment on the ACAS Report which urgently said that legislation should be brought forward as speedily as possible? Is he aware that that Report went into all the problems of the strike and recorded the desire not only of the dockers but of other sections of the Transport and General Workers' Union that we should proceed with legislation?

Mr. Smith: Yes, but not this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Foot: May I make it clear? The hon. Gentleman will see in paragraph 57 of the ACAS Report the statement that the representatives of the other sections of the TGWU felt
that the Government should speedily introduce the legislation to bring all British courts into the registration scheme and clearly define dock work.
That is what we are doing. The Report went on, on that basis, to urge that we should have legislation. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would comment on that?

Mr. Smith: Of course, there are other unions involved than the TGWU—the GMWU, USDAW, the Association of Clerical Workers and the EAUW. But the leaders of some of those unions are ignoring the views coming up to them from their rank and file.

Mr. James Johnson: No.

Mr. Smith: Yes, that is a fact. I shall deal with the Minister's intervention later.
The main aim of the Bill is to extend the definition of dock work. I am willing to be guided, since I may not know enough about it, but I am surprised to see that one activity is the identification, checking and recording of goods. That has never struck me as dock work particularly.

Mr. Spearing: I think that that illustrates something of the ignorance of many hon. Members opposite. The unloading of conventional cargo involves not just transfer of goods but sorting to mark, sorting bills of lading, storage under certain conditions and collection together of goods for onward delivery. It is a total operation additional to the physical movement of goods.

Mr. Smith: As I said, I am prepared to be guided by Labour Members as to what is traditional dock work, but if I were interpreting such a provision I should think that that was traditional clerical work.

Mr. Spearing: That is where the hon. Member would be wrong.

Mr. Smith: I am not arguing with the hon. Gentleman; I accept his assurance that that is traditional dock work.
A distance of five miles from ports has been specified. But what worries many people, including me, is Clause 4(5) of the Bill, which allows the Secretary of State to extend the distance even unilaterally. I hope that we will hear tonight how he proposes to use that power. Is there a limit to the distance by which he would extend it? Will it be used on the basis of what is clone rather than the place concerned? This is a very dangerous clause. I know that the Minister has to come to the House and so on, but he will have considerable powers.
Everybody knows that the Cabinet dictates what happens here. As long as he has a majority of the boys behind him and can get it through the Cabinet, the Secretary of State is all right. Some of us are not very impressed with the idea that the Secretary of State always comes

up with the suggestion that the House must decide as though this were some great democratic institution where every hon. Member voted just as he liked, irrespective of what his party told him and what his Cabinet wanted to do. I hope that the Minister will tell us how far he proposes to extend the scheme and on what basis.
Clause 2 extends the activities and responsibilities of the National Dock Labour Board. Presumably that carries with it the present rights to require firms to employ labour that they do not need. That is a major problem with ports in the scheme at present. It is certainly something that worries employers considerably.
I have heard and accept many of the reasons given by the hon. Member for Garston for the reduced size of the labour force on the docks. I agree with much of what he said, but it should be clear that there is another reason—that many of the docks in the scheme are now uneconomic in terms of consumer prices compared with ports that do not have to operate the scheme. [Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members dissenting. That is a statement of fact.
I toured the London Docks recently and found them to be a scene of dereliction. It was tragic to see brand new warehouses which had never been used standing idle and wharves with no one on them or using them.
I accept some of the arguments about technological change, but one of the reasons is that people who import to this country have found it easier, cheaper and more reliable to bring their goods in through foreign ports. In the debate on the Queen's Speech, the Leader of the Liberal Party referred to the tea industry. One Labour Member challenged his figures. The port charges at Rotterdam are £10·56 per ton compared with £13·21 per ton in London. Whatever the reasons for this—it may be possible to argue a perfectly logical case for its being cheaper to unload in Rotterdam than in London—it is a fact, and so long as it is people will use the port of Rotterdam rather than London.
I concede that that fact is not entirely attributable to the dock scheme, but some of it is, because employers are being asked to take on labour that they do not want. The wages they pay have to be


reflected in the prices they charge. That is one of the problems of the scheme and the way in which it is operating.

Mr. Ivor Clemitson: Unemployment.

Mr. Smith: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shouting through his beard. He must face facts and not make cheap political jibes such as that. The fact is that it is cheaper to unload a ton of tea in Rotterdam than it is in London. One of the reasons is that employers are being asked to pay wages to a hell of a lot of men whom they do not need.

Mr. Spearing: I have the tea charges with me. The dock charges in London are £10·33 a ton and in Rotterdam they are £11·11 a ton. But the ship owners make a surcharge in London of £3·50.

Mr. Smith: I, too, have the figures supplied to the hon. Gentleman, and from the same source. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman giving him the source of my information. I understand that he visited the company concerned after I had given him the address.

Mr. Spearing: I did not visit the company.

Mr. Smith: I accept that, but certainly the hon. Gentleman was in touch with the company and my information was that he was going to visit it. Perhaps he cancelled the visit. On my information, the port of London charges £13·21 a ton and Rotterdam £10·56. Our source of information is the same. I am prepared to let the hon. Gentleman see a copy of a letter which I have.
To what conclusions do we come? First, we conclude that no reasonable case has been made for extending the scope of the 1967 scheme. Secondly, there are deep and genuine fears among thousands of ordinary, decent workers among loyal trade unionists, loyal members of recognised, TUC-affiliated trade unions. I am talking not of tens or scores of workers but of thousands, who have a real fear for the continuation of their jobs under the scheme.
I hope that the Minister of State, for whom I have a deep personal respect, will do his best to alleviate those fears. Fear of unemployment is a terrible thing. Many of the people I have seen, particu-

larly in Dagenham, were trade unionists who had experienced the port of London dock scheme. They were not talking from 100 miles away about something going on in London.
The branch secretary of the TGWU picked me up outside the House in his car and drove me to Dagenham and back to meet his fellow workers. His brother was the chairman of the Dock Labour Scheme. What he said about how dockers got jobs under the scheme was revealing, but because I have no evidence I shall say no more than that. It is certain that thousands of workers, thousands of trade unionists, branch secretaries and shop stewards are deeply concerned about their jobs under the scheme. The Government can run and run and burke, but that is a fact and something with which the Government will have to contend. The people concerned are entitled to an answer. Many of them pay the political levy.
Thirdly, the extension of the system of registered dock work will lead to vastly increased costs. The Minister challenged that, but I have a document, dated 9th February, on which I place no particular importance but which represents the views of about 3,500 importers out of a total of 5,000. The importers' main conclusions are that import costs will rise by 5 per cent. or £150 million a year. These increased costs will be passed on to the consumer.
I have not argued about concentrating all food supplies in the hands of a few militants. That is not a vital argument. It could be used about the power workers and all sorts of people. But the House is right to have some regard for the consumers. The evidence, which is not disputed, is that the consumer will be faced with higher costs.
Fourthly, I am worried by the ability of the Secretary of State to declare vast areas of the country dock zones. Fifthly, small ports will be faced with huge increases in costs for no logical reason.
We recognise the Bill for what it is—a gross irrelevance in the present economic situation. It is a belated Christmas present to Mr. Jones. It is a piece of idiotic nonsense which should be committed to where I commit all documents from Aims of Industry—the waste-paper basket. My hon. Friends and I shall vote against it.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Iain MacCormick: Anyone who has had even a scanty look at the popular Press in the last few days must have imagined that today we should have a great debate on a tremendous issue. I have been disappointed so far, chiefly by the contribution from the Secretary of State, whose speech bore no comparison with some others that he has made. His tenor was of shame of what he had to say. His answers to interventions from both sides of the House amounted to a smoke screen of evasion which added to the impression I had previously.
Most hon. Members felt that this was an issue on which the Government would stake their existence. How absurd for them to choose this issue! I do not share the Government's ideological background. I do not approve of what is generally accepted as Socialist ideology, but I should have admired the Government more if they had chosen to take a stand on their ideological background rather than on this issue.
The Bill cannot be immediately indentified with what I have always imagined to be the Labour Party's ideology. Concorde-like, it has crashed through the ideological barrier, and the Government have led us into a wonderful new ground where, it is thought, it is not the working class or trade unionists that count, but where a particular brand of trade unionism is evidently at present to be favoured. They have arranged to fight their last battle and have drawn themselves into a strong band. In the last ditch they will not fight for the interests of the whole country or of all workers but, in their quasi-Socialist stronghold, they will find a Nirvana where the dock worker is king and where no one else really counts.
From the Scottish National Party's point of view we must point out exactly how the Bill will affect people of all types and classes and members of all trade unions throughout the United Kingdom, particularly those in Scotland. It is not long since we debated the whole principle of devolution. It is probably true to say that many hon. Members who spoke in favour of devolution spoke of the general sins of omission of the Westminster Government. They referred to all the time that has been lost over the question of Scottish legislation. They may even have picked on specific subjects

where laws should have been made for Scotland, but such laws have not been passed due to lack of time.
I go further than that. The Bill makes the point that we must go further. Not only have the Westminster Government been guilty of sins of omission, but they have also been guilty of sins of commission in relation to Scotland. Had this wretched and iniquitous measure been on the statute book before the debate on devolution took place, many hon. Members would have raised the question of how the Westminster Government could make a positive mistake about the government of Scotland. That can be backed up solidly by the facts and the differences which exist between the Scottish economy—the Scottish situation—and that south of the border. The very introduction of the Bill as a measure affecting the United Kingdom as a whole is an example of how a kind of doctrinaire adherence to the concept of a rigidly unitary State can harm interests of communities north of the border.
I turn to some examples which illustrate that. The first that comes to mind and which I know also applies to parts of England is that of the small ports. The big battalions of the various sections of the union movement, and, evidently, the Secretary of State, consign the small ports into the outer darkness. However, in a Scottish context they are of vital importance to the communities which they serve. I shall not take up the House's time by citing every example, but a good example are the islands in the West and North of Scotland. We are not speaking of people who have a choice between a small port nearby or a larger port farther away, because in such communities there are only small ports, and every item imported by these communities and sent out must go via those ports.
My party seeks an assurance that this measure will not apply to such small ports. In particular there is the port of Stornoway, which lies in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). Stornoway is a good example, because it serves an island community of upwards of 20,000 people. Among those who run that port is the last Provost of Stornoway, who is a member of the Labour Party. He told me that the Bill would increase the running costs of that port by at least


£25,000 a year and that if there were a change in the method by which goods were brought in to the community the cost would be even higher. It would mean that it would no longer be possible to bring goods in by conventional cargo steamer but the more expensive roll-on/roll-off vehicular ferry method would have to be used.
The Secretary of State for Employment may look puzzled and irritable, but the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is a member of the same Government, recognised this situation only a few months ago when he refused to allow the shipping company to withdrawn its ordinary conventional cargo steamer service because that service saved money for the community. All hon. Members appreciate the penalties of living in such remote island communities, so it is not necessary for me to rehearse the problems. If this iniquitous measure is passed it will not only increase the penalties of living in those remote communities, such as, Stornoway and Lewis, but it will also increase the penalties of living in the other islands in the west which are served by conventional cargo steamer, and in the Orkneys and Shetlands. I should deprecate that.
That also applies with equal force to other small ports on the mainland of Scotland. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) referred to Montrose and the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) mentioned Perth, both of which depend to some extent on casual labour in the summer time. Is it not better that those people should be gainfully employed in the dock of Montrose rather than be a charge on unemployment and social security benefits? It is an odd social Nirvana if this is the kind of situation which the Dock Work Regulation Bill is designed to bring about.
Another important aspect is how the Bill will affect the fishing industry in Scotland and in other parts of the United Kingdom. The fishing industry is not safe from the Bill. There are exceptions. Schedule 3, Part II, says:
 The ordinary work of those forming the crew of a fishing vessel; the unloading of fishing vessels which either—

(a) are less than 25 metres in length and are not ordinarily at sea for more than six days at a time; or

(b) are of that length or greater, and are not ordinarily at sea for more than three days at a time."

Is that the kind of arbitrary limit that we should impose on the fishing industry The Secretary of State will know that Mr. Stewart, the President of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, wrote to him and made this point. We are talking mainly of the Scottish inshore fishing fleet and of a situation where developments are taking place all the time. Are we to restrict the growth of fishing boats to a length of 25 metres simply because of this ridiculous Bill? Are we to become, as the Secretary of State has become, latter-day Luddites opposed to any kind of technological advance simply to satisfy the wishes of a certain small group of trade unionists? I do not think so.
The President of the Scottish Fisher men's Association said that the inshore fishermen are not employees in the normal sense. He said that they are share owners in their boats and in their catches. He said:
The consequences of this is that the members of the crew who unload the fish are the owners of the fish. Surely they are entitled to unload their own fish? We have not yet achieved the Utopian State where only members of the gardeners' union may plant potatoes in one's garden or only members of the shoeblacks' union may polish one's shoes. Even the lawyers allow a citizen to conduct his own case in the courts…".
That makes the point admirably clear.
I ask the Government to give us a categoric assurance tonight that there will be no interference in any fishing port with the traditional practices which are natural for the fishing industry and which every fisherman, not only in Scotland but, I am sure, in England and other parts of the United Kingdom, is most keen indeed to maintain.
Another aspect which I had thought of dwelling upon to some extent is the food industry. In Scotland the food industry is to a great extent comparable in its recent development with that industry in other parts of the United Kingdom. In recent years there has been the development of the deep freeze and cold storage side of the industry. However, I find that the Bill is rather odd in respect of Scotland from that point of view. Representatives of the cold storage industry in Scotland tell me that the cold stores in Scotland are in the main located at


Conon Bridge, Inverness, the Moray Firth, Fraserburgh, Peterhead, Aberdeen, Montrose, Dundee, and so on—well within five miles of the sea. That means that virtually the whole of the cold storage industry in Scotland will be covered by this wretched Bill, with the consequence of higher cost and the possibility of industrial trouble to which other hon. Members have referred.
I do not intend to continue at length. However, in conclusion I must say that it strikes me with great force that this matter ought not to be one of these awful ghastly party matters, Left-wing versus Right-wing. I began by saying that this matter in any case goes much further, from the Labour Party's point of view, than the simple ideological Left versus Right battle. The Government have crashed through that barrier long ago with this measure. I ask those Labour Members who represent seats in Scotland—[Hon. Members: "Where are they?"] Indeed, where are they? I had welcomed the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown), and I see that the Lord Advocate is present as well. I ask them and their absent colleagues whether this measure really relates to conditions in Scotland. Is it relevant? [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) is making his presence felt, or rather heard. Do Labour Members think that this measure is relevant to the Scottish situation? If, at the very worst, the Bill is passed, surely at a later stage, in Committee, we can make sure that Scotland is excised from the Bill altogether.
The second group I should like to mention are those Labour Members who are sponsored by trade unions other than the Transport and General Workers' Union. The Bill is also not related to all of the membership of the Transport and General Workers' Union, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). Clearly, the interests of various union members are threatened by the Bill, not only now but also right into the future. From that point of view I ask Labour Members to oppose the Bill.
To the rest of Labour Members, who may not think that they have much involved in this issue, I say, for good-

ness' sake let common sense prevail, and if they want to fight a last-ditch battle, let them fight it on better ground than that on which they have chosen to fight this battle.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) ended his speech on a note of which the House would be wise to remind itself. Let us approach this matter from a commonsense point of view. I do not think that it is right on Second Reading of a Bill to allow the heat that may be generated to displace the reason that is required in order to examine its objectives and purposes, or, indeed to recall its origins. There is no political gain to be achieved by assuming a large amount of protest on television and in the national Press before Second Reading by the Opposition, which now asserts a more muted sound.
The House must ask itself a simple but nevertheless fundamental question. Has the Bill been prepared in a more leisurely and more careful fashion than any previous measure since Devlin some decades ago? I should have thought that it would be quite clear, particularly after the damaging strikes during the period when the Opposition were in power, that we have spent a considerable time in preparing the Bill and in already carrying out a great deal of consultation.
Much play has been made by the Opposition—we understand the reason for it—about divisions and difficulties within and between unions on this matter. That was an acceptable observation from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). However, that is the very reason why we had the discussions. That is the reason why doubts and worries about employment affecting other unions had to be discussed.
As Chairman of the Ports Committee of the Parliamentary Labour Party, I am very glad to be able to say that we have been working for some years now on the very principle of consultation, discussion and negotiation. I am not associated with any particular political grouping within the House. When I make that observation I hope that the House will pay me the compliment of accepting that I represent what might be called a moderate approach to these matters. I assure the


House that where there have been difficulties and worries—as there must be in a House of Commons—there has been the greatest haste to get near to the areas where consultation is necessary. The result has been that in this case, only a matter of two or three weeks ago, the TUC Transport Industries Committee expressed unanimous support—that is the word, "unanimous"—for the Second Reading of the Bill. The signatories to the Press release included 12 unions.
That is not to say, of course, that having made that commitment, of unanimous agreement, that all the difficulties divisions and worries will disappear. Indeed, any kind of legislation before the House is bound to affect the consumer or the public as a working population in some particular way. Therefore, it is not a new, or, as the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) attempted to imply, nasty piece of legislation which has introduced concern and worry for the first time. That is not so. It was because we saw that any kind of change in the regulation of dock work would be bound to affect people other than dockers that consultation had to be the keynote of our approach. Indeed, the consultative document was issued in March of last year and now we are discussing the matter on Second Reading in February of this year. That is not an indication of undue haste.
The other aspect of the Bill which the House should bear in mind is that it is about the first time in any legislation affecting docks and dock workers that there has been put into a Bill enabling powers, purely and simply, and not legislative powers placing upon the industry or certain people a fail accompli situation, a take-it-or-leave-it situation.
The first job of the new National Dock Labour Board will be to deal with the 80 ports which are within the present scheme and to give the Secretary of State information which will help him to devise a new scheme. It will not be able to deal with the other 59 ports outside the scheme, because it will have plenty to do during that period.
As the Secretary of State has made clear, Clause 8 and the definitions in Schedule 4 put an onus upon the industry, the National Dock Labour Board, the trade union movement, the Secretary of

State and the CBI to submit recommendations only on the basis of merit. Even those recommendations will be determined in the end by Parliament. In my view, that is a guarantee that the problem will not be approached in a manner which is dictatorial and that there will be a reasonable approach.
Nevertheless, the House must bear in mind that this industry has suffered enough from the uncertainty of employment. In less than 30 years the dock labour force has decreased by more than half from 78,458 to about 34,480. In the past six months the labour force has fallen by about 2,000. Those are the type of dramatic figures which impinge upon the mind of every dock worker the need to ask Parliament for the working conditions which most working people, especially those in the professions, enjoy.
In my view, it is not wrong for the dock workers to ask for their working conditions to be reviewed. It is only reasonable for the Government to approach this matter slowly and carefully, so that it will be determined by consultation and the processes of recommendation. As the Secretary of State said, if there are objections to a recommendation he can send it back for further discussion. This is different from the language of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft, whose record in employment matters and industrial relations was, to say the least, dismal, unsatisfactory and contrary to the national interest between 1970 and 1974.
Let us consider how the Bill affects the non-scheme ports. There are only 59 ports big enough to come within the first general consideration of the scheme. In those ports there are about 2,910 workers who are cargo handling. Of those, about 2,700 are dealing with only third party traffic and a great number of them are in the nationalised industries which are not affected by the Bill. Therefore, we are not talking about a large number of men or a large increase in costs of the kind which some hon. Members have said will affect the consumer. We are dealing with a small number of men in comparison with the present labour force of 32,000 in the scheme ports.
When considering how I should approach the Bill and whether I should give full marks to the Government, I considered to what extent my contribution


should try to establish public confidence. During the past few days we have had no contribution to that end from the Opposition. We appreciate the difficulty of arriving at a definition of dock work which will give confidence to those whose jobs may now be affected by the Bill. We must make it abundantly clear that we recognise their problem.
I have had discussions with many bodies—employer as well as employee organisations. I am satisfied that after discussing the matter with me they were fairly well satisfied that the problem was being approached with a sense of responsibility.
Many hon. Members believe that the matter might well have been dealt with better if running concurrent with this Bill there was a Bill on port reorganisation. In that way we would have been able to see more clearly how the two forms of development could be harmonised in such a way as to meet the national interest arising from increasing competition from foreign ports such as Rotterdam, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Rochdale.
When we discuss port reorganisation or labour in the ports, we always look forward to the mention by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft of the famous port of Felixstowe. It is noticeable that today he has not said a word about Felixstowe. Not so many months ago he was rampaging against the Labour Government over their intentions for Felixstowe.
I read in the Press that Felixstowe, after all its prognostications about nationalisation, had stated publicly that its application to proceed towards nationalisation was on the basis of a willing seller dealing with a willing buyer.
At that time Felixstowe was the so-called gem of private enterprise. I do not dispute that. However, after the making of its application to the British Transport Docks Board to become nationalised, the willingness of the workers at Felixstowe to come within the scheme was often questioned by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft. During the past few months the workers at Felixstowe and the unions have voluntarily made it abundantly clear that they want to be in the scheme.
The argument which the right hon. Gentleman had put against our proposal for the port was whipped right out of his

hand. The port of Felixstowe is marching into nationalisation and the men are demanding to be in the scheme. Therefore, without that great pillar of support which the right hon. Gentleman once thought he had, and over which he used to charge the Labour Government with being difficult about the development of the scheme and the port reorganisation, he is left naked, defenceless and obviously cold and angry.
I am satisfied with the assurances by my right hon. Friend about what will happen in Standing Committee. He has accepted that there will be amendments to the Bill. The trade union movement has agreed to suggest possible amendments. In a Press release on 21st January the TUC said of the 12 unions concerned:
It was agreed that in order to ensure that the language of the Bill adequately covers the points which have for some time been understood and agreed by all the unions, the Minister will be asked to consider some drafting amendments for the Committee stage.
As Chairman of the House of Commons Ports Committee I am satisfied with my right hon. Friend's assurances that he will accept an amendment and will initiate others. In view of that, we can support the Bill. I believe that its flexibility is adequate to enable Opposition Members, particularly those with port interests, not to vote against the Bill simply because the right hon. Member for Lowestoft has got himself into a pickle.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Leon Brittan: The history of civilisation was once described as the transition from status to contract. As civilisation developed, men's relationships with each other changed from a situation in which rights and position were determined by the status in which a man found himself—such as slavery—to one in which agreements were freely entered into. In this Bill the move is in the reverse direction, from contract to status, and that is the central objection to the Bill.
The central feature of the scheme is one in which a unique status is given to dock workers. Unique privileges and unique protection, which are dependent neither upon a contractual relationship nor upon an agreement between them and their employers, are extended to them by a Government scheme which makes


them virtually unsackable. The objection to that is not jealousy in the face of privileges enjoyed by the dock workers but rather that the giving of that unique status is unfair to other employees in the rest of industry. It is extending to one small section in the working community a position which no one else in industry or the professions could dream of enjoying. That is surely wrong in principle.
Such protection should be extended in the way the Government have suggested only if it is necessary in order to confer substantial benefits elsewhere which outweigh the fundamental objection to such a privileged status. Does the Bill produce such fundamental benefits? I submit that it does exactly the opposite.
There has been reference to the effect on costs and to the estimate, which is unchallenged, by the British Importers Confederation, with its variegated membership, that the effect of the Bill would be to increase costs by 5 per cent. to a not inconsiderable total of £150 million. That figure was not simply plucked out of the blue. It is based upon examples produced by the confederation. One concerned a London warehouse which was not employing registered dock labour and in which, for a case of canned fruit or vegetables the cost of receiving, housing and redelivering to a van was 6·6p. The same operation using a wharf employing registered dock labour would cost 24p per case. That is a tremendous difference and is a good illustration of the effect of extending the scheme.
What about efficiency? The very fact that costs will go up shows that efficiency will go down. It is apparent why. The reason is not accidental or malevolent. It is that in the past—and there is no reason to believe that things will change in the future—with the scheme inflexibility has been a byword and restrictive practices have been commonplace.
We all know and can cite examples of how the inefficiency arises. Registered labour insists on one gang for loading, another for unloading, two men for examination and another man as a sampler. The effect of this on a small wharf in the London area is that nine men would be needed under the scheme whereas six could do the work otherwise.

The wages bill in that sort of situation would go up from £330 to £495, and to that must be added £56·92p for the 11½ per cent. levy. Therefore, if costs are to go up and efficiency is to come down, what is the compensating benefit to the objection in principle to the extension of this privilege? Is it improved labour relations? That is the justification which has been presented to us for all the damage which will be done. There is no evidence that labour relations are one jot or tittle better in the scheme ports than the non-scheme ports, and such evidence as exists points in the opposite direction.
To introduce, as the scheme does, a third party between employer and employee is contrary to all the accepted good principles of industrial relations. By so closely involving the unions with the operation of the scheme, as has been the case up to now, there is a very real danger that they will lose touch with their men and take the blame for management. That has frequently happened in the past. One of the reasons for so much of the industrial dispute in the docks since the war is not the difficulty of dock workers but precisely that with a union-run scheme the dock workers felt that the union was no longer representing their interests, as it would have done if it had not been engaged in management.
There are great fears—it is no use trying to shirk them—that dockers will take jobs away from those currently working in storage areas. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's assurances. I do not believe that any of the ordinary working people who consulted some of us could possibly be satisfied with those assurances or that they could rely upon them for the safety of their jobs. I hey would not doubt the Secretary of State's honesty. The trouble is that the assurances were so vague.
The Secretary of State referred to long-established warehouses which would not come within the scheme. But when is a warehouse long-established? How long must it have existed before it can remain free of the Secretary of State's tentacles? The right hon. Gentleman ducked one question. Even if it is right that the dockers will not take jobs from the cold-storage workers, what happens when vacancies for those jobs arise? Will only the dockers be employed to fill


them? That was the USDAW worry. It was the worry that was not answered.
When considering a central objection to the Bill—namely, the worry that one worker will have his job taken by another—it is not good enough for the Secretary of State or the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) to say that the matter will be taken care of, if necessary, by amendments made in Committee. This is a matter which has caused deep anxiety among working people. If it is not resolved satisfactorily at this stage, that alone is sufficient reason for the Bill not to have a Second Reading.
The purpose of the scheme is defined in Clause 5(2)(a) as
securing stability of employment for dock workers and the creation and maintenance of a permanent labour force of a size and composition appropriate for the efficient performance of dock work".
But will the scheme and its extension have that effect? What will be the result of the introduction of the five-mile corridor? Those who have deliberately set up their operations outside the docks will leapfrog the five-mile limit and set up in business a short distance behind it. That will mean that the Secretary of State will say that, because people have found it cheaper and more efficient to operate outside the five-mile corridor, the corridor had better be extended back another five miles, and so on and so forth. Is that the way to achieve stability of employment? Is that the way to improve industrial relations?
Another question which has not been answered is what will happen if the cold-storage concerns close down. By the time that the Government have finished, many of them will have closed down. Will those who have been working in cold-storage plants, and who are registered for the first time under the scheme, be entitled to go to the ports and demand a job? What will happen about that? I do not believe that the dock workers would welcome that approach. Is this a recipe for improved industrial relations? Mr. Norman Douglas, of the British Shippers Council, spoke the truth last month when he said:
You cannot create employment by moving a shortage of jobs from the ship's side to the warehouse any more than you can make yourself richer by moving your overdraft from one hank to another

If costs increase, efficiency diminishes and labour relations are not improved, and if the fundamental principle of giving a unique privilege and status is undesirable it is hardly surprising that the opposition to the Bill is as vehement as it has shown itself to be. There is remarkable unanimity in the opposition to the Bill.
It is interesting that my constituency is flanked on one side by the Tees and Hartlepool Pool Authority, the large port consisting principally of Middlesbrough and Hartlepool, where many of my constituents work. Within my constituency there is the small port of Whitby. It is fair to say that neither port is run by private enterprise, both being public in one sense or another. However, those concerned in the operation of those ports are unanimous for different reasons in regarding the Bill in its present form as unacceptable.

Mr. Leadbitter: That is an untrue imputation.I spoke for the creation of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority in 1967. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not misleading the House deliberately when he makes such a statement. I can assure him that all the dock workers in the Tees and Hartlepool port who are already in the scheme wish to stay in the scheme. They would rebut his suggestion. The hon. Gentleman is saying that from the employers' side there are reasoned objections which he wants to be taken into account in the Bill. I have his letter.

Mr. Brittan: I have the letter as well. We can compare notes. We can see whether it is the same letter. The point I made with great care is that the people running the ports—it is not private enterprise—have grave objections to the Bill in its present form. That is the true position. There is strong objection from those who are concerned with the running of the port at Whitby—namely, the local authority.
Whitby is a good example of a small port. It is not only Scotland that will suffer. What will happen in a part such as Whitby? The answer is that costs will increase and charges to users will increase. Users will be driven elsewhere. Will the regular dock workers at Whitby be any better off as a result of the extention of the scheme? The answer is clearly "No". They already enjoy the


same rates of pay, the same holiday pay and the same pensions and bonuses as if they were in the scheme.
What about the casual workers? Will they be any better off? At present they are employed when the harbour is particularly busy. If they are registered, the result will be that costs will soar and it will become prohibitively expensive for cargo to be handled at Whitby. If they are not registered and they are excluded from work even when their labour is necessary, the situation will be exactly as the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) said in the case of the small Scottish ports. In that event the casual workers will be out of a job. When the harbour is busy, registered workers will have to be brought in from a long way away regardless of the extra costs and delays that will be involved.
What will be the effect upon the services that can be provided by a port such as Whitby? At present, 700-ton ships can be turned round in four hours. That service will no longer be available. The port is bound to decline. Sooner or later even the registered jobs will be in jeopardy. Presumably it is for the benefit of those holding those jobs that the Bill is proposed. The implementation of the scheme would be a disaster for a port such as Whitby and a disaster for countless other small ports throughout the country which are providing an efficient and valuable service for the surrounding areas. Those ports will be destroyed as a hostage to dogma.
Why is the Bill being introduced? Why do we have to have it when it will cause increased inefficiency and the destruction of the small ports? The answer is that it is the product of a squalid political deal between the Secretary of State and Mr. Jack Jones. It has nothing to do with industrial efficiency or industrial relations. It is the purchase of political support by the gift of monopoly. There is nothing new in that. The Bill is merely one of the most blatant examples of one of the oldest and worst traditions of cowardly government. It is a direct descendant of the disreputable land-dealing with robber barons and the granting of tobacco and cotton monopolies by weak Governments to eighteenth century mercantilists.
Since the days of Simon de Montfort the House of Commons has ranged itself against such unfair political favouritism. For six centuries the need to grant political favours unrelated to the needs of the nation has been the hallmark of weak government. The State monopoly is the typical device of those who are unable to govern by the strength of reason and argument, those who must instead resort to the sale of favours to supporters.
Tonight we shall not be voting for or against a new measure designed to solve a particular economic problem. We shall be voting on the eternal question of the morality of government, the price to be paid to outside interests in return for services rendered. That price is far too high for this House to be prepared to pay it, and for that reason the Bill should be defeated.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Tierney: Whatever the facts and whatever the fears, whatever the fiction and whatever the fantasies generated by the Bill, most of my hon. Friends regard the Bill as a genuine attempt by my right hon. Friend to update and improve, in the light of modern requirements, the National Dock Labour Board, which exists by virtue of the Dock Workers Employment Scheme of 1967.
We all know and understand that economic and industrial developments have affected the performance and classification of dock work and that change is called for. The Bill will give powers and responsibilities to the Board to keep under review economic and industrial developments which affect, or are likely to affect, the performance of work that qualifies as dock work. The powers will effect changes where necessary, will develop good industrial relations, will seek to improve co-operation between dock employers and dock workers, and will improve efficiency. The powers will adjust the strength and disposition of the labour force in the docks and will lead to an examination of methods of recruitment and training. I am using as a background document a statement made by the Transport and General Workers' Union on the subject of dock work. Is not such a procedure better than constant strikes, bullying or threats, which can


only cause complete destruction and ill feeling?
In almost any other situation I believe that the objectives I have related would be accepted as reasonable and desirable. I am sure that they would be welcomed by reasonable people. However, there has been strong reaction and near hysteria about the contents of the Bill, according to some, our food supplies are in peril, for it is feared that the dockers will place a stranglehold on a situation involving an industrial dispute.
In recent months we have observed that neither dockers nor miners have a monopoly of bloody-mindedness. There are other powerful sections, not amateurs when it comes to exercising a stranglehold on the nation. We must place our hope and trust in their good sense and co-operation. We can do no more and no less with the dockers or anybody else. I think that point should be emphasised.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) spoke of freedom and enterprise. Had he read the Aims document rather than put it in the waste-paper basket, perhaps he would have carried out a "stuffing and stripping" job. Having listened to the hon. Gentleman's judgment arrived at following one visit to Dagenham, I find the hon. Gentleman reminds me of a subscriber to that very organisation. Aims for Freedom of Enterprise has been ensuring that some shop stewards have freedom of speech and has given their remarks maximum publicity.
It was right for my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) to explain the situation in his area because Aims has sought to make claims about public statements made by shop stewards. Aims has claimed that shop stewards have said that the new scheme will produce conflict, theft, skiving and overmanning. No doubt we could find a few shop stewards who would be glad to pass their own judgment on Aims. But perhaps we should not go into that. That kind of public activity is scurrilous and troublemaking and helps nobody.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) made an excellent speech and said that scant regard had been paid to the fact that dock workers have played an important rôle in this country.
As with most pieces of legislation some areas of application are easy to define and fairly clear and straightforward—and that applies to the present Bill. The proposed extension of the dock area bringing in new establishments, the argument over the definition of "dock work", and the question of the point at which a work operation amounts to dock work bring in a host of marginal considerations. It is the lack of clarity and understanding about the effect the Bill will have on these marginal situations that arouses emotions and leads to misunderstandings and conflict.
In January the TUC Transport Industries Committee gave support to the Bill, but sought to ensure that the language of the Bill adequately covered the points which have been understood and agreed by various unions. Consequently, the Minister will be asked to consider amendments on these lines in Committee. A number of unions, including USDAW, were represented on that committee which saw the need to reduce the possibility of inter-union conflict, and achieved a great measure of success.
I wish to declare an interest as a member of USDAW, which for many years has had members in warehousing, food manufacture, storage and packaging, cold stores, tea and coffee warehouses and many other work places. Most of those establishments in which our members work are well within five miles from a port, river or canal, and thousands of our members have had union-company agreements covering their conditions of labour. Those agreements have existed for a long time. Their employment has not been considered to be detrimental to dock workers, and industrial relations have been reasonable over the years. Naturally, many of our members seek some understanding of the scope of the Bill. However, in face of those fears and apprehensions, the contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment earlier in the debate was fair and helpful and I am prepared to trust him on the assurances he gave.
I should like to put on record what some of the Bill's provisions will mean in terms of practical application in work places in which my members are employed. Perhaps I may give an example which may help to allay fears. I am


thinking of a cold store within five miles of a port, and certainly within a cargo-handling area, covering about 100 workers. About 60 per cent. of food held in that store comes from the home market. That figure could rise or fall depending on the situation. About 40 per cent. of the food held in that store comprises fish and meat taken off boats, and again that figure could rise or fall according to variable conditions. Some 20 per cent. of the workers engaged in that store carry out dock transport operations. Loaders and drivers handle 40 per cent. of food held in that store. I wish to emphasise that the percentage figures could rise or fall depending on the work in the port. The food holdings in that store could come from London, Liverpool or Felixstowe.
The work force in that store is made up of members of four different unions. The drivers and loaders are members of the Transport and General Workers' Union; the warehousemen, packers and porters are USDAW members; the maintenance men are members of the AUEW; and the office workers are members of APEX.
There are a number of questions I wish to put to the Minister, and I hope that he will deal with them in his reply. Could the loading and carrying of 40 per cent. of food held in that store, having come straight off a boat, be classified under the Bill as "dock work"? If only 20 per cent. of the work force is employed in handling that work, could that number be placed on the register? Thirdly, what will happen to the rest of the work force in that store? Fourthly, if one union has a greater number of members than another union in the same store will it be interpreted as the patch of the one union rather than the other in their operations in that store?
These are some of the questions causing concern to trade unions. I understand from my right hon. Friend's assurances in opening the debate that such fears are groundless, but I hope he will confirm that the kind of operation to which I have referred is not work directly transferred from the docks, is not connected with port operations and is not intended to be included in the scheme.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The financial effects stated in the Bill are modest by the present Government's usual standards, and the Dock Labour Board's borrowings are related essentially to the cost of a further rundown of the dock labour force. But this apparent financial modesty flies in the face of the enormous real cost of the Bill and the Government's policy of appeasement towards dock workers in the big ports.
This legislation makes certain dockers a privileged class of worker and must be seen in broader financial terms—for instance, in the cost of industrial disputes in smaller ports and warehouses which will inevitably follow. There will also inevitably be a reduction in productivity and efficiency and a loss of trade in the smaller ports. Other hon. Members have already mentioned the increased cost of food and other items which will result from the Bill.
If those costs are compared with the redundancy costs of reducing the dock labour force to a realistic level, the financial enormity of the Government's proposals can be seen. Even this Government should know that jobs cannot be created where they do not exist, except perhaps in Government Departments. All that this protective legislation can do is to provide privileged employment for one man and the spectre of unemployment for another.
If the Bill were just a financial folly, it would be bad enough. But it is an extension of privilege as a reward not for effort but for militancy and blackmail. If this is not so, why is this legislation being applied only to dockers in the big ports? Why is there no legislation for a form of registered car worker so that men made redundant by Chrysler or British Leyland can be placed in jobs at present held by garage workers? The prospect of unemployment for car workers, railway men and steel men is just as real as for dockers in the big ports but not as well cushioned.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) claimed that a deliberate campaign was being waged against dockers. This is not so. The dockers who wield power in this country are the militants


in London and Liverpool, and they are not typical of dockers in other parts of Great Britain. People are naturally afraid that if these militants are given control of food storage and distribution warehouses their power to hold the country to ransom will be greatly increased.

Mr. Iain Sproat: A very good example of what my hon. Friend is saying can be seen now in the port of Aberdeen. With the fishing industry in the worst crisis this century, fish porters are saying that, unless they are given a share of the wages that would have been paid to men made redundant at the end of last year, they will refuse to work. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an example of what we all fear might spread?

Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the issue with that relevant and topical case, which brings home the dangers of the sort of dispute which this legislation is bound to encourage.
These are factors that Labour Members ignore at the peril of their constituents. They should remember that they represent their constituents here and not the big unions who give them orders. They may have forgotten that the small ports deal not only with Europe and Scandinavia but also with other parts of the British Isles, particularly the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland. If work is disrupted by disputes at these ports and costs rise, as they must under the Bill, this will hit hardest in the islands where prices are already highest and wages lowest compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.
I make no apology for mentioning again in the debate the small port of Montrose, if only because people on both sides of the industry there have taken the trouble to put their case to hon. Members. I have a letter from a stevedoring firm which illustrates the point.
The firm in question requires 40 dock labourers during the summer months and 70 in the winter. The 40 are full-time employees of the company, enjoying the fullest benefits, and the additional 30 men taken on in the winter are on a supplementary register and assist in the movement of agricultural goods, which depend on Montrose as their outlet to the export markets. During the summer

these men work in other industries with a high seasonal labour requirement. If this legislation goes through, the harbour of Montrose will require a full-time force of 70 dock labourers and the increased cost will be £75,000 a year—equivalent to 40p per ton of cargo handled.
That is the sort of sheer financial folly in this legislation which we are trying to make clear to the Government. The aim of the Bill is appeasement, yet it will bring only dispute and destruction. The Secretary of State is helpless to change the course of this privilege Bill—it has been set by his trade union masters—but we are free to exercise our judgment in the national interest, and that will take us all into the "No" Lobby.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his discourse except to say that he used the most shocking language. For a long time at school I was puzzled to find out the meaning of the word "hyperbole". But just listen to this, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I know the meaning of the word.

Mr. Johnson: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North talked about privileged employment for one man and the spectre of unemployment for another. He spoke of blackmail and, in an apparent reference to myself and my hon. Friends for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Tierney) and Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), who are all sponsored members of large and powerful unions, he mentioned our trade union "masters". We are accused of belonging to big unions which give the Government their marching orders. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) had his share of bombast and we heard bombast in speech after speech. I wish that so many Opposition Members did not think simply in terms of black and white. This is not a perfect Bill—no one is kidding me about that—

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The point of comparison here is the amount of time which Labour Members spent consulting


trade unions on the Bill compared with the amount of time they spent consulting their constituents, who are the consumers and will have to pay the price of this legislation.

Mr. Johnson: I have consulted my constituents. On Saturday mornings there have been processions of constituents at my surgery. Most of them have been in favour of the Bill and some have been against. I wish to put to the Minister of State some of the anxieties that have been expressed to me.
Several unions, including the General and Municipal Workers' Union—to which I belong—the National Union of Public Employees and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, have expressed anxieties about the Bill. Why should we be so mealy-mouthed as not to be able to say that to our own comrades, our own Ministers? Conversely, why are the Opposition so hypocritical as to shirk what they know to be the facts of life and to give us again this well-trodden path of bombast, saying that the Bill is no good?
The Secretary of State gave some verbal assurances about which I should like to ask the Minister of State one or two questions. There is no doubt that the Bill could affect certain workers in wholesaling, warehousing, coal storage, single-user ports, retailing operations, packaging operations and so on. The single-user port has been adequately dealt with in the Bill. My union has raised some of these matters and my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool, in a very gilded speech, referred to the consultation that had been undertaken.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North talked of consultations. Is he not a democrat like me? Does he not believe that the Government should consult the parties which will be affected by legislation? Surely he does not object to consultation with the TUC and large unions. Does he deny that we should be able to talk to Ministers and discuss the guts of the Bill?

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: indicated dissent.

Mr. Johnson: I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman shake his head.

What he said did not exactly sound like that.
Although some of us may have misgivings about certain parts of the Bill, we are in favour of stabilisation of dock work. Anyone who does not believe in that is mad. We also believe in the improvement of industrial relations in the docks. Anyone who does not believe that is half-witted. We believe that the Bill aims to do those things.
Our anxieties relate not to the Bill and its principle but to certain fringe workers who could be affected by it and to the security of employment. Statements have been made by the Secretary of State, and we are satisfied that those verbal assurances mean what they say. Our anxieties relate to workers in long-established warehousing, storage, packaging and cold-store operations not related to work directly transferred from the dock.
In Hull there are several warehouses and cold stores, including Birds Eye, which do not come under the Bill. That work does not come from the dock. I understand that many hon. Members have received an emotional leaflet on behalf of the tenants of Smithfield. The unions involved, including my own, consider that these workers are presumed to be excluded, but the exclusion provided for in paragraph 10 of Schedule 3 does not clearly exclude warehousing and wholesaling. That must be made explicit. I hope that it will be done in Committee.
We are concerned that equal weight should be placed on the views of unions and management in effected schemes. We are sometimes worried that the National Dock Labour Board is the be-all and end-all and that the unions are merely "called in". We believe that the unions should have much more status and that the initiative should not always be left to the NDLB, as it seems to be left in the text of the Bill. The Bill leaves significant powers with the Secretary of State and the NDLB. That discretion is a little too wide. The Secretary of State gave assurances that these anxieties will be overcome. We look to the Committee stage to assess the viability of these assurances. It is clear that the principle of the Bill should be supported, and I hope that ways and means will be found to overcome these anxieties.
Perhaps I may now say something nice to the Minister. The Bill enables me and my colleagues in Hull to achieve something we have wanted since the days of Ernie Bevin. With a deputation of officials and lay members of my union, I came to see the Minister of State about fish dockers. They wished to be looked after a little better. Unfortunately they have been under the suzerainty of the vessel owners in Hull, and we had the devil's own task to get out of the owners what the workers wanted. I believe that where workers are employed at this moment by non-scheme employers and are essentially doing dock work—loading fish off a vessel from Iceland on to the dock at Hull is just as much dock work as loading bananas, timber or sugar—they should come into this category.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is alongside me, knows exactly what I am saying. These men—we call them "bobbers"—do similar work to that of other dockers. There is nothing distinctive or unique about their work. It is clearly to their advantage that they should come within the scheme. My first look at Clause 7 of the Bill seemed to indicate that it would provide for their inclusion. If the Minister of State is able to confirm their inclusion at the end of his speech, it will give enormous happiness to hundreds of dockers and their families in Hull who for years have fought about this question.
The main area of concern is with the extension of the NDLB jurisdiction to a five-mile cargo-handling zone, and perhaps beyond, according to Clause 4(5). There is some concern among our members about the effects of the scheme on established warehousing operations. It was agreed, I understand, at the TUC Transport Industries Committee on 4th November that these activities should not be included in the extension of the Dock Labour Scheme.
The apprehension of our members is well founded. Unless we alter the text, as I assume we shall, by way of amendment in Committee, the workers to whom I have referred will be excluded. On the contrary, Part II of Schedule 3 specifically includes work in connection with warehousing, sorting, weighing, movement and lighterage. These will be classified, I understand, as dock work. This

gives some concern over some of our members' existing jobs in the sense that they may—again I am qualifying it—be in danger of take-over.
I listened carefully to the Secretary of State and feel much better than I did an hour or two ago. I tell those hon. Gentlemen opposite with somewhat sarcastic and sneering visages that I have faith in my colleagues in the Cabinet and believe what they say. If I did not, I should not be sitting behind them and voting, as I shall tonight, for the Bill.

Mr. Peter Rees: Since the hon. Gentleman has directed his attention at me, perhaps he could ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of State to deal with the dilemma from which his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State flinched. If there is to be an incorporation into the registered dock labour force of all those working in the cargo-handling zone, this will provide no security for the existing members' registered force. If, on the other hand, they are not to be incorporated, the assurances which the Secretary of State gave earlier in the debate are really not worth the hot air expelled into the Chamber in uttering them. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will concentrate on that dilemma, because it should be exercising him and his constituents.

Mr. Johnson: Since I am not the Minister, I shall not attempt to answer the question but will leave it to the Minister as I have faith in my colleagues in my party. Obviously, by definition, the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) cannot share that faith. But life is subjective. The hon. and learned Member has his opinion about this matter, and I dare say the Minister of State will take note of what he has said and perhaps say something about it towards the end of his winding-up speech.
I hope I have indicated to the Minister that there are these legitimate anxieties, and I should be a humbug if I did not, from these Benches behind him, state the feeling of the people who come to my surgery and whom I have met in the course of meetings, deputations and delegations. There have been deputations to the House, as the Minister knows, of officials from my union and others with lay members alongside them. I am sure


that when the Minister winds up he will pay some attention to what I have said and make some comment on it.
The majority of the anxieties originally expressed over the proposals in the consultative document have been met in the wording of the Bill, but there are still some lacunae and I hope that they will be dealt with in Committee. The provision for consultation with parties seems to be inadequate and I ask the Minister to look again at the text of the Bill in that respect. It needs to be modified to allow equal status to all parties concerned.
I conclude by repeating, for the benefit of some doubters on the Opposition side, that I believe in the principle of the Bill. It will stablilise conditions in the docks and will, in my view, with those amendments, give a square deal to those in other unions which were a little anxious a few weeks ago.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hicks: I wish to concentrate my remarks on the effects that the provisions of the Bill will have on two industries, agriculture and food, but first I should like to make one or two more general observations.
I find it particularly disturbing that during the Secretary of State's opening remarks he paid so little attention to the existing 59 non-scheme ports. As the Secretary of State will know from his West Country connections, we have many of these in that part of the world, in particular at Teignmouth and Exmouth. They all play a most useful part in the local economy, providing a service which no one else can fulfil. The fact that they are totally disregarded clearly illustrates that the concept "big means better is winning its way with the Minister at the present time.
My second general point relates to the cost of implementing these proposals, the effect they will have on the efficiency of those associated occupational activities which we have discussed this afternoon, and, in the ultimate, the effect they will have on the price the consumer has to pay.
I should also, in passing, like to make the point that, in my view, because the dock industry has undergone such massive industrial change in recent years, it

is wrong for the Government to try to isolate the problems of our ports and harbours in general from the question of the definition of dock labour. By trying to separate these two issues, the Government have missed an opportunity to formulate a meaningful, progressive programme for our ports and harbours in the future.
As has been said already, the present Dock Labour Scheme was introduced in 1967. We now have some 32,000 registered dockers who are placed in a very special position amongst their fellow British workers. This Bill envisages the extension of the system to all ports, the hinterlands within the five-mile corridor, and along inland waterways. This, in spite of what has been said earlier this afternoon, means that this geographical extension will be accompanied by an occupational extension. Nothing that the Minister said in answering his hon. Friends earlier convinces me otherwise at this stage. Therefore, as I understand the position, with certain exceptions which are already set out in the Bill, this will embrace in the future practically anyone handling imported goods or those destined for export, not only in the ports but also in warehouses, cold stores and other distribution depots and installations within five miles of the coast or estuary.
In addition, there is the very worrying reserve power that any other location within the United Kingdom could at some future date be designated as a cargo-handling zone. These proposals clearly contain far-reaching implications which will affect not only those engaged in these activities at present but also the country as a whole. Therefore, we are entitled to ask why these proposals are being introduced.
The Bill defines the purposes of the scheme as being to secure stability of employment for dock workers and to ensure that dock work is carried out only by dock workers. There may be other motivations, but the final effect will be to find new openings for the existing surplus dock labour, which means compelling employers to engage dock labour for a whole range of additional activities at the expense of existing employees belonging maybe to other unions but engaged in the same activities.
I believe that this will have damaging effects not only from the labour relations


aspect which has been mentioned, not only from the point of view of over-maiming, not only in terms of restrictive practices, which certainly applicable here, but also from the point of view of efficiency and costs and the consequential effect that these factors will have on the prices paid by the consumer.
I want, therefore, to refer to this in the context of agriculture and food, bearing in mind the overhanging problems of industrial relations which no one can pretend have been good in the docks industry in the past. Far be it from me to suggest gloom and despair, but it is causing genuine concern to people in the country, who are asking what alternative means there would be to keep going the country's food supplies in the event of industrial action. In the past this has been done through the non-scheme ports, as a result of reserve stocks of raw materials of all kinds in warehouses, and thanks to large quantities of food in cold stores, but, as I interpret the position, these options would be denied to the consumer and to the farmer in the future, thus enabling this one section of the community to impose its will on the rest of the nation.
Do not the Government realise that, in the event of an emergency, if these alternative sources of supply were not available, their proposals could have a disastrous effect on British farms, on pig production, poultry production and egg production?

Mr. Foot: Oh, God.

Mr. Hicks: The Secretary of State may well say "Oh, God". He represents Ebbw Vale. He may not have any farms in his constituency, but I can assure him that in the area which I represent and which he was obliged to leave in 1955 these matters that I am bringing to the attention of the House really concern people. The Government's proposals could have an adverse affect on the whole livestock sector of British farming.
The same is true of the consumer, bearing in mind that 50 per cent. of our food is imported. The Secretary of State has not denied that there will be an increase in costs. This will most certainly mean that the housewife will have to face rising prices. Our food distribution network is a highly integrated and efficient industry, and it is very cost conscious. I appre-

ciate that it is difficult to estimate the increase in costs which would result if these proposals were implemented in full, but there is no doubt that there will be additional financial burdens for the consumer to bear.
I believe that, later this evening, the House will appreciate readily that these are both undesirable and unnecessary. Both the producer and the consumer of food will be affected adversely by these proposals. They are totally irrelevant to the nation's requirement. Above ail, they provide a framework which could be very damaging to our country in the future. For those reasons, they must be opposed.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I apologise to the House for not having been able to listen to the whole of this debate. I have spent some time upstairs in the Standing Committee considering the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. Of course, we had some horror stories about that Bill, but we would have to go a long way to find the equivalent of the horror stories that we have read in the Press of late and that we have heard today about the present Bill.
We have been told about a group of workers who have been described as "masters in inflexibility". We have heard about the development and the retention of restrictive practices. We have been told that some of us are being dictated to by a very large union, presumably the Transport and General Workers' Union. Last November, in looking at this piece of legislation, the Daily Telegraph talked about the dockers
having the nation by the throat".
Yet, if we look at the numbers employed in the docks industry, the first striking feature is that over the last decade, according to the National Ports Council, the number of registered dock workers has fallen from 64,000 to 34,000. It has been cut by half. If that is because of inflexibility, restrictive practices and a massive, powerful union, heaven help the rest of us.
That is the position, and, again according to the report of the National Ports Council, there were 54,672 registered dockers in 1968 and by 1974 there were


34,600. That is a cut of about 40 per cent., and although these statistics are not completely comparable the total tonnage over that period increased by 13 per cent. We are told that this is a powerful union dictating to people which are able to keep inflexibility and restrictive practices, holding the nation by the throat, and goodness knows what else.
My right hon. Friend quite rightly referred to the history of this industry. I represent Bristol, North-West, which contains Avonmouth. Having tried to spend some time studying the docks industry I would add something to what my right hon. Friend has said. He spoke of attempts to bring in legislation over a long period of time. I would sum up this industry in terms of employers who have consistently evaded their responsibilities, and have done so irrespective of what has happened in attempts to get them to heed their responsibilities. We have had report after report and we have had some good pieces of legislation from this House, but many employers have evaded, either completely or partly, their responsibilities. People who have been in this House for a long time have tried to lay down what those responsibilities ought to be, but after they have done so employers have evaded their responsibilities to workers who still work in appalling and ofter dangerous conditions.
I can remember not so long ago going down to the "Pen" in the Port of Avonmouth on many occasions where 1,500 dockers were standing around and employers came out and selected some of them and said "I will take you, but not yon. I will take you, but not you because you were injured some time ago, so no work for you." It was like a cattle market.
This was still going on until quite recently when we had the decasualisation proposals. We have had reports like those of Devlin and Bristow and the setting up of the National Dock Labour Board and decasualisation. We have had the Jones-Aldington Report and legislation. In my judgment this is an extension of that, and given the modern conditions it is absolutely essential.
We have seen the reaction of many companies faced with the kind of legislation that this House has tried to bring

in to prevent the appalling conditions and the appalling spectacle of dockers being taken on or not taken on in this way. Many of these are powerful multinational companies. We remember that, at a time when the dockers were put in prison, it was suggested that the employer concerned was a little firm which had been built up by one man; but it was then discovered that it was a large multinational company with an empire stretching from the Argentine to Brazil and elsewhere. That is the kind of story which is put out when these multinational companies try to evade their responsibilities. They have set up facilities outside the docks. That is what this is all about.
We have heard a great deal in this debate about the efficient utilisation of economic resources. My dockers tell me that within the area of Avonmouth thousands of pounds have been spent on warehouses outside the docks by these multinational firms which are part of the oligopolistic type shipping lines, like Corrie's, Bibby and Union Cold Store. They have spent thousands of pounds in economic resources building warehouses and so on while existing warehouses and cold stores on the docks are standing empty and idle. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because they want cheaper labour. They are not prepared to meet the kind of requirements and responsibilities that are laid down by the National Dock Labour Board. In fact, if it were possible these firms would build their warehouses in South Korea or somewhere like that. That is exactly the same kind of situation.
While they are doing that, 70 per cent. of dockers are sent home because there is no work. Dockers in Avonmouth are not attempting to claim other people's jobs, but view this only in terms of jobs which are quite clearly related to cargo being taken off and put on ships. In my judgment, Schedule 3 lays this out quite clearly in its definition of cargo and work which may be classified as dock work. It lays out quite clearly what the Government are seeking to do.
I very much support this piece of legislation. As for this image of thousands of dockers descending on these warehouses to take away jobs from other people, there are only 34,000 dockers left. If they continue to leave the industry or


to retire at the present rate for very much longer there will be none left, so how many are we talking about? I understand from statistics of the National Ports Council that about 10,000 of the 34,000 are over the age of 50. Many are coming towards retirement—and yet it is said they are to come in their thousands to take over other people's jobs. To say that is really a nonsense. It is completely divorced from reality.
I support the National Dock Labour Scheme because, although, in my view, it does not go far enough, it is an important extension of industrial democracy. I know that the five-mile zone can be extended. If I were framing the Bill, I would define dock work and I should not care in what part of the country it might be. I have had representations from employers who say "We will go along with it, but it is unfair that we should be put in that position while another employer who has moved 20 miles down the road is not." I welcome the Bill and I hope that before long we shall be giving a Second Reading to a Bill to take all the ports into public ownership.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: The hon. member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) speaks with knowledge of the docks from his own constituency interest, which always commands support, certainly from me. He has at last come out into the open and placed before us the true reason for the Bill—that dockers who have lost work should be able to pursue it and oblige the importers, the warehouse owners and the cold-store companies to employ them, although the economics of international competition have obliged those importers and employers to move from the docks, where they would no doubt have been glad to continue to use existing installations.
If it is openly stated that the object of the Bill is to enable dockers to pursue work which their own restrictive practices have helped to make uneconomic at the docks, at least we know where we stand. When the Secretary of State explained the Bill, however, he shied away from the logical consequences. He said that no one would lose his job as a result of the extended operation of the

Dock Labour Scheme. But then the right hon. Gentleman was unable to explain how it would advantage the registered dock worker. If no one is to lose his job, how is the dock worker to regain employment which he has lost? That is the dilemma of any Minister supporting the Bill who is reluctant, understandably, to come out so frankly with the real reason for it.
The sensible approach lies in a remark by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker), who in an excellent speech said that we cannot consider the problems of the docks in isolation. When we legislate for this industry, we are not seeking to regulate an Indian reservation the affairs of which are of interest only to a select few. This industry effects every other industry and person in the country.
I was disturbed that the Secretary of State gave no indication of having considered even the interests of anyone but the dock workers or of any other industry, let alone how the interests of those other people and industries would be advantaged. I am not surprised, because the Bill is concerned only with the interests of dock workers. Clause 5 sets it out in black and white that the main concern is the greater stability of employment in the docks and the extension of registerd dock working to all appropriate work.
So far as I know, nobody who is not a dock worker is in favour of the Bill. Is there a cold-storage operator in the zones to be affected who will welcome it? Is there a haulage operator who will welcome it? Is there a chamber of commerce, a trade association or a consumers' organisation which has said that it welcomes this measure? I believe that there is none. Lest I should be thought to be taking a one-sided view, can it be said that every trade union welcomes the Bill? From the reservations, doubts and grumbles we have heard, however muted, from the Government Benches, we know that the answer is "No".
The truth is that there are many people who see in the Bill the seeds of future conflict. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) said, it is a measure which is intended to increase the power and the privilege of one sector of the work force.

Mr. Foot: Has the right hon, and learned Gentleman read the Report by ACAS on the strike at the beginning of last year, in which it recommended early legislation?

Mr. Mayhew: I agree that ACAS recommended early legislation, but it did not recommend this legislation. I am saying that there is no evidence that anybody concerned with the operation of industry or with consumers' interests has welcomed the legislation. Instead, it is seen to contain the makings of increased privilege for a body which is at present uniquely privileged in the industrial scene. I understand why that privilege was introduced, and I respect the concern that hon. Members who represent dock constituencies have demonstrated. We should not forget historic inequities, injustices and hardships which in Victorian days and more recently have obtained in the dock industry. But the rest of us have to move on and cope with a modern England.
I want to see recognition of the continuing problems in the docks and recognition that there is declining work for those working in the docks, but I want different methods of dealing with the problems. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West asked why the industry had declined from about 60,000 workers to 34,000 in the last 10 years. Those figures may not be exact but they point to a decline, which has happened largely because about £60 million has been rightly spent on paying people to leave the industry.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I was not posing that question. I was saying "If the labour force is cut by half when a group of workers are said to using restrictive practices, and to have the nation by the throat, and when they belong to powerful trade unions, heaven help them if they had a weak trade union!"

Mr. Mayhew: I know that that is what the hon. Gentleman was saying. I do not put my opposition to the Bill on the stranglehold argument. The facts show that if sufficient monetary inducement is offered people will leave the industry. In 1974 75,000 man-days were lost through strikes in the docks and in 1973 160,000 man-days were lost. Every time there is a strike exports are lost,

delivery dates are not met, good will is lost and the country's interests are endangered.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: A major reason for all the dock workers being held in contempt is the colossal number of thefts which take place from docks. There are so many thefts that after a few days of being on strike the dockers have to go back to work.

Mr. Mayhew: My hon. and learned Friend has a constituency knowledge of ports that I shall not seek to emulate.
As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone said, we have to examine the problems of the dock industry in the context of the interests of the country as a whole. When consumers experience increased prices, the Government should realise that there will be increased inflation. Industrialists realise that there will be greater difficulties in industrial relations and greater increases in prices.
The problem of the docks cannot be solved by extending the industry's unique privilege. An alternative exists. That alternative has already resulted in the expenditure of £60 million, which was properly spent, in order to diminish a surplus dock labour force. That is what we should be doing instead of paying off election debts by introducing this monstrous and highly damaging Bill.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. John Prescott: We have heard a great deal of rubbish spoken in this Chamber tonight. It is incumbent on me to disprove some of the points that have been made by hon. Members who have no experience of dock work. I doubt whether they have ever visited a dock. If, like the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who is not present, they visited and saw an empty space, they have not understood the economics or the reason for that situation coming about, they have believed what has been printed in the Press and they have put it down to the plague of the country, namely, unions and strikes. That is not the position. Hon. Members do not have to take my word for it. It has constantly been made clear by Government spokesmen and by several hon. Members that inquiries have investigated many of the


issues, examined the causes and have recommended that legislation is the answer to regulating and bringing some form of stability to the industry.
When people speak, as hon. Members have done today, of the causes for the decline in the industry, it reflects their lack of adequate knowledge. I have worked as a docker in New Zealand and for 10 years I was a seaman. Therefore, I have spent a considerable time around the waterfronts of this country and in other parts of the world. The problems of the dockers, which relate to technology, changes and cheaper costs, are similar to those which face every country in the world.
We have to find an industrial solution to the real problem which faces dockers and their industry. Not only do they face technological change but they also face the real basic motivation of the capitalist system, namely, that the employer has sought to find a cheaper source of labour. That is not unique to dockers. It applies to seamen and to every other form of worker. The difference is that some workers are in a stronger position to resist that pressure and others are in a considerably weaker position.
I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly. However, it provides only half the solution. The Bill should have been one to nationalise the docks. The problem is that we have always sought to reorganise the docks piecemeal and we have not implemented a comprehensive solution to the problem. That is part of the criticism I make of the Opposition's position tonight.
This legislation not only affects the workers involved but it extends their rights and industrial democracy. This industry is the one industry in which there has been a fifty-fifty arrangement because workers have had equal rights with employers over their conditions. It has not been easy for the employers to have their way over matters affecting the docks because there has been this fifty-fifty arrangement which gave equal powers and negotiating strengths. That is one of the factors which are being resisted by Conservative Members when they oppose the Bill.
Before passing on to other matters, I might add that I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind and press upon other Departments that we should not allow any private cavorting by private companies to take over at Felixstowe. It is essential that that system comes within the public system.
It has been said today that there are not any workers who are demanding to come into this scheme. From my experience in Hull I know that there are, indeed, workers who are demanding this. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) has mentioned this. The bobbers in Hull have been demanding that they should be part of the National Dock Labour Scheme. There are building workers who want a registration scheme because it will advance their conditions of work. That is solely why they want it. It means extra cost, but that is what it is about.
That is the continual conflict between those who want a cheaper cost and the trade unions which attempt to get a fair price for what their members offer. Twice as many seamen from my area are in a registration scheme. Fishermen are also now going into and want a statutory registration scheme. Therefore, it is not right to say that workers do not want to come under some kind of registration. If it improves their power and position and conditions of work, clearly most workers will want that.
There are workers who are concerned quite a lot by the publicity that has blown up about whether the Bill is a threat to their jobs. I shall come to that matter. However, when I hear an Opposition Member say that he is concerned about the unfair advantages that dockers have and that they should not advance as a vanguard of better conditions for workers, it seems that what the Opposition are saying is that we should all level down. When it comes to the maintenance of privilege in private education, apparently one cannot bring the privileged into the comprehensive education system because we all ought to be levelled up. There is a contradiction there. What this means is that one privilege is better than another but the privilege of private education is considerably more acceptable than the privilege of a docker, in this case, or a worker generally to advance his working conditions.
As I have said, since 1920 the inquiries have advocated the ending of casualisation. Devlin made it clear, as did the recent reports such as the ACAS-Bristow Report and the Aldington-Jones Report. I was surprised to hear the Opposition Front Bench spokesman saying that these were not impartial inquiries and that he wanted an impartial inquiry now. I must say to him that one of the plagues of this industry is the uncertainty that more and more inquiries have produced. We have had inquiry after inquiry but no action whatsoever. The uncertainty that this has introduced into the industry was a major contributory factor to the disputes in 1972. That factor was aided by the development of the off-the-dock estates into container areas and small wharves. This played a major part in my area.
The main charges levelled by the Opposition against the Bill are in two broad categories. Because of the lack of time I shall not go into them at length. The first is that the Bill will not develop an efficient system and that costs will increase. I am bound to say to the Opposition that there is a second contradiction in their arguments. It is not only technology that has led industry to move from the dock estate. It is largely the fact of the cheaper costs that exist outside it—but just outside the gate, and not in the centre of other areas. The dockers do not dispute the matter of the distribution of some traffic if it is moved into Leeds, for instance, but they are highly resentful if it moves just outside the dock gate to obtain cheap labour, because this causes redundancies. It causes resentment and considerable industrial relations problems.
In my area, Hull, we have seen developed the unregistered Humberside wharves, 21 of them. That is a major concentration in the Humberside area. It has been attracted there by the fact that cheap labour is provided there. However, the social conditions are far below the standard that other dockers enjoy. There is no sick pay in many cases, and safety conditions are far worse than those which exist in registered docks. Labour is cheap and is working many hours. Hon. Members do not have to take my word for that. They can look at the report of the inquiry by the National Ports Council set up by the previous

Government to look into the conditions of the wharves. To a certain extent, therefore, there is some hypocrisy in that argument.
I come to another aspect of the subject of costs and efficiency. The Opposition, when in power—and my own Government—believed in the financial obligation of the nationalised industries, that is, that they would have to pay a certain rate of return over a certain period. The Opposition take it much further. They believe that we should impose a heavy financial discipline on the docks because that is the way to introduce modernisation. They want to see a high return on capital investment. The difficulty is that £35 million has been spent by the nationalised industries in modernising the Humber port with container cranes—which are necessary for trade—huge wharves and new docks. The problem is that a great deal of traffic has diverted past the port of Hull. Nearly 2 million tons has been lost. To Hull that means a lot of lost income.
There are financial obligations. As the costs go up, so also do the charges to meet the higher interest rates. Thus the port has less revenue. The smaller wharves are in a better economic position to compete because they are not members of the scheme. With a few thousand pounds' investment they have been able to get cheap labour and cheap advantages. Even if the labour costs were equal, the scheme ports could not compete. It would mean the dissipation of all the port development. Dockers become highly resentful when they see millions of tons of traffic going to the smaller wharves run by hauliers who want to bypass the system and who have economic advantages in their favour. The dockers ask what will be done about it.
Although we pressed in Opposition in debate after debate, the then Government were not prepared to deal with the situation. Therefore, in 1972 the dockers took their own action in the dispute over the wharves. I joined them on the picket lines because it was right to stop the development of the smaller wharves—the third-party wharves—and I hope that that will eventually come about. It is clearly part of any nationalisation programme.
There will be many effects if the port of Hull declines. The effects will be felt


by the railway workers, the lorry drivers, the shipbuilding workers and all the industries associated with our port economy. Those people will fight not only for their work but for the whole economic development of, in this case, an area with high unemployment. When the Conservative Government refused to take action, the dockers took the only action they knew—and effectively—to achieve their ends.
The matter of costs was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) in an exchange which he had with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) about tea. The point was made that there was a 10 to 15 per cent. difference in costs between Rotterdam and the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman admitted that it was the freight system, the conference system that imposed the charges, which made the difference. If we are concerned about costs, we should attack the conference system which creates the extra cost. The hon. Gentleman concentrates his attack only on the labour system and its costs.
I should like to quote the example of a firm of timber merchants in Hull. It complained that it was having to put £1 on the cost of timber from a Russian ship because it would take longer to unload. It said that the dockers were sitting down and not working. I investigated the circumstances. The lorry driver who was taken on to move the wood was from a small-time firm obviously offering a cheap service. However, he did not have enough stillages to take the timber from the ship. When the dockers had filled one they had to wait for the next.
What are they expected to do? Of course they sat down. However, the charge went up to £1. The price went up not because the dockers sat down but because a petty haulage lorry driver did not have enough capital to develop his business. The employer did not look at the situation in that way. He blamed the dockers.
I should like to refer to the claim that the Bill threatens jobs. The assurances given by the Secretary of State are sufficient. After the struggle in 1972, the

dockers and the lorry drivers were at odds. I had to address many angry lorry drivers who felt that their jobs were being threatened. They got together under a union official called Jack Ashwell and they formed a committee. It consisted of dockers, lorry drivers and employers. There were two employers and four workers, and it decided how the work of stripping and stuffing should be dealt with. Even though the number of dockers in Hull has been reduced from 6,000 to 2,000 in the last 10 years, the dock workers did not insist that the work in the warehouses should be given to them. They simply asked that the workers doing the job should be given the dock rate of pay.
One hon. Member asked whether the system would work. In one warehouse in Hull some men are paid the dock rate and others are paid another rate, but they are working amicably together. I welcome the Bill as an advance, but we impatiently await the nationalisation of the ports.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: The last argument produced by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was a cogent case against the Bill. He said that in his constituency problems which had arisen had been solved by collective arrangements between the people concerned. There is no need for a law to deal with the situation which he precisely described. That is part of our argument against the Bill.
The debate has been characterised by Labour Members looking backwards and fighting, once again, the battles of yesteryear, whereas my hon. Friends have been looking forward to the problems of tomorrow in a vital industry which has been affected by technological change. I had intended to say that the debate had shown not a single wholehearted supporter of the Bill, but then that case was ruined by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, and now I must say that there has been only one wholehearted supporter who seeks to attach no conditions to the Bill. Even the Secretary of State in introducing it seemed to devote most of his speech to talking about amendments and giving assurances, but we had much more talk than commitment from him.
We accept that there are problems in the docks. It is an industry of declining job opportunities, opportunities which have been the victim of technological change such as containerisation, roll-on/roll-off, palletisation and bulk loading and unloading. It has a past history of casual labour and of unfairness and injustice. This past history has combined with increasing fears about job security and stability.
Of course the dock industry is very important. As a country we live and survive by exports and imports. Labour Members have sought to turn our opposition to the Bill into a general attack on the ports and those who work in them. That is a gross misrepresentation of our case. We believe that the Bill is an irrelevant absurdity, and that it will prove wasteful and costly to the consumer. It will be divisive of working people, and it is dangerous for the community and for the nation.
It must rank high in the all-time list of unwanted legislation. The lack of enthusiasm displayed by even the most loyal Government supporters was notable, and the Bill is not wanted by many unions and probably not by most workers. As far as I am aware, the TUC has not come out with any great enthusiasm for the Bill. It is not wanted by those who use the ports—for example, the General Council of British Shipping, the British Ports Association, the Grain and Feed Trade Association, which is important to the livestock industry, the British Importers Confederation, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the British Chamber of Commerce. The Food and Drink Industry Council and the National Cold Storage Federation are extremely worried. In some of the speeches of Labour Members there has been a reflection of that concern. Practically everyone who has seen and studied the Bill is against it, with the exception of those most intimately involved in the union sense—for example, members of the Transport and General Workers' Union and Jack Jones.
An interesting matter which has emerged from the debate has been the way in which the consultative process has continued. We have had the curious example of consultation that appeared to take place but which did not. A consultative document was issued in March 1975.

It followed other investigations and consultations. Even then it was clear that the Government were off course in their approach to these matters. In paragraph 6 of the consultative document it was written:
The consultations have not produced evidence which the Government can accept as showing that the present scheme"—
that is, the Dock Labour Scheme—
has of itself adversely affected industrial relations or efficiency.
That is curious Civil Service-type language to be found in a consultative document. I suspect that if the bureaucrats had not been allowed to get at it the truth would have been seen that experience and consultations had produced strong and powerful evidence that the Dock Labour Scheme had adversely affected both industrial relations and efficiency, and that only the Government, with perhaps their mentors in the Transport and General Workers' Union, were unable to recognise and accept the facts and realities of the situation.
Let us consider two further passages from the consultative document. In paragraph 21 it is made quite clear that there is to be a defined limit of five miles with no exceptions. Let us compare that commitment with the curious wording in Clause 4(3), (4) and (5). In subsection (3) the five-mile limit is established. In subsection (4) we find the curious definition of the sea referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker). There is the indication in subsection (5) that the five-mile limit can be extended without limit—for example, 10 miles, 15 miles or 20 miles. If that is not good enough, the Secretary of State can, in certain circumstances, designate any area, however large or however small, and wherever it is in the country, as being a cargo-handling area. One of the key parts of the consultative document imposed a clear limitation on the Dock Labour Scheme.
What happened to the consultation with the vast majority of interests which have been worried about the five-mile limit? What has happened to the procedure for dealing with disputes? It was made clear in paragraph 31 of the consultative document that there was a rôle for the Central Arbitration Committee of ACAS. The Bill leaves all that out. It


is left to the Secretary of State to act or not to act on the advice of the Dock Labour Board. The option is left to the right hon. Gentleman. He is permitted either to accept or to reject each recommendation.
At the end of the day it will be the Secretary of State's decision. He has only to come to this House to seek an affirmative resolution to implement what he requires. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is wrong with that?"] It is a very important matter. It is very different from dealing with a situation by the much longer legislative procedure, which allows a greater degree of examination.
I turn to the question of enabling powers. We regard this as a dangerous precedent. Hard-line Socialists and Marxists have always hankered after enabling legislation. They envisage a simple Bill so that Ministers can proceed by order. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House flirted with this idea in the recent procedure debate. Now we have the Secretary of State for Employment revealing his true colours. Obviously he much prefers to move in that direction. We disagree fundamentally with that approach to important matters.
The Secretary of State has ignored the overwhelming opposition to his proposals. That became clear following the publication of the consultative document, but the situation has been made substantially worse because the Bill has not met any of the criticisms made by most of the interested parties.
Why has the Secretary of State acted in such an arbitrary and dictatorial fashion? To find the answer we must look to the issue of Port of 8th October 1975. We were told that the Secretary of State broke away from his party's conference at Blackpool to meet the working party of the National Dock Group of the Transport and General Workers' Union. He was able to make clear to that body that on this occasion there would be no loopholes through which employers could escape. It was understood that the Secretary of State was prepared to extend the scheme to all inland depots, whether within the five-mile corridor along major estuaries, or outside, and that he would take the

scheme as far as manufacturers' premises if he found companies setting up their own groupage depots to escape the use of registered depots.
That is the kind of negotiation and consultation that took place. The Secretary of State worked out a deal to satisfy the representatives of that working party and it made things that much worse for everybody else. What a revealing light has been thrown on the activities of a right hon. Gentleman who used to be thought of as a great parliamentarian. It has been done in smoke-filled backrooms. [An HON. MEMBER: "It has been no secret."] It has been secret because, so far as I know, there was no formal statement. This was not held up to the light of Parliament. What an utter and total farce the Secretary of State for Employment has made of the consultative process.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he relied a good deal on ACAS. He has tried to argue that he was doing nothing odd or strange, but was merely following what was set out in the Devlin Report and other inquiries, such as the Bristow Report and the Report of ACAS.
We must beware when the Secretary of State summarises quotations from official documents. He is obviously very strongly in favour of the ACAS report because he has quoted it not only in his speech, but in interventions. The report says:
It is not for us to say how the legislation should be changed—that is a matter for Government.
ACAS rightly opts out of the details of legislation and makes no recommendation of the kind which, the Secretary of State says, so clearly indicates that ACAS is right behind all that is in the Bill. The report goes on:
Government, having brought forward its proposals for legislation relating to registered dockwork, should make every effort to give these proposals legal effect within the minimum period possible.
What ACAS is actually saying is that there should not a be a long period of delay with proposals on the table. No comment is made about the merit of the proposals. I hope the Secretary of State will read over his words and see whether they justify the claims he has been making.

Mr. Foot: I have never said that ACAS accepted the proposals we were making. It did not have our proposals at that stage. What I said, in repudiation of all the arguments from the Opposition, was that ACAS had said it was absolutely urgent that there should be legislation on this question. The Opposition have been pressing throughout the debate for an inquiry instead of legislation. ACAS, which was the last organisation to inquire into this matter, has repudiated everything said by the Opposition today.

Mr. Hayhoe: I advise the Secretary of State to read the recommendations again. They do not say what he claims. ACAS recommends that once legislation has been tabled the period of uncertainty should not be prolonged. That is very different from the Secretary of State's gross misrepresentation. We are getting fed up with the Secretary of State. In debate after debate he misrepresents factual information.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) spoke appreciatively of the Dock Labour Board and the scheme, saying that it was one of the best examples of industrial democracy in action. He does the cause of industrial democracy a great disservice. Many of us believe that moves towards industrial democracy and greater participation and involvement of everybody in industry will be helpful for our economy, but many people would be put off if they thought the target of hon. Members opposite was the organisation we now see in the Dock Labour Board and the scheme.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said the scheme was good for industrial democracy because it showed there were equal rights between employers and workers. We cannot dissent from that, but it is interesting and symptomatic of the views of the hon. Member and his hon. Friends that they always talk of rights and never of responsibilities. If industrial democracy is to work there must be a sharing of rights and responsibilities within industry.
This Bill is wasteful and costly. It will increase costs and reduce flexibility. How can the Government ignore the overwhelming evidence of those most concerned? There is an enormous number of documents, which I am sure Ministers and hon. Members have seen, clearly

indicating that the Bill, if fully implemented, will raise costs. No Government supporter has argued that costs will come down and that the Bill will lead to more efficient operation. Not one Government supporter is prepared to argue that the Government proposals will improve flexibility. They are prepared to try to pull the wool over people's eyes a great deal of the time, but not even they would attempt such a monstrous misrepresentation of reality, because they know that the Bill will increase costs and reduce efficiency.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Has my hon. Friend also noticed that the Whips could not dredge up a member of the Scottish National Party or Plaid Cymru to speak in favour of the Bill?

Mr. Hayhoe: It might be unwise to draw attention to the Whips' difficulties.
We also believe that the Bill is a divisive Bill. It sets one worker against another. It vastly extends areas of potential disagreement and provides a fertile ground for industrial disputes. For example, let us take a depot or cold store in which a General and Municipal Workers' Union closed shop is in operation. Let us assume that all the procedures go through and the extension register procedure is applied. A vacancy occurs and someone is drafted in from the main register. What happens if that person is a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union? That question must be answered. The position could be reversed where there is a T & GWU closed shop. Not all dockers are members of the T & GWU. In the Secretary of State's constituency there are General and Municipal Workers' Union men in the docks. What happens in those circumstances? We deserve answers to these questions, which were put to the Secretary of State and not answered.
What about the problems of the first-and second-class workers implicit in the whole concept of main and extension registers? Workers on the main register have total job security, but a worker on the extension register by Clause 5(5) is expressly prohibited from having job security built in as it applies to men on the main register. Why should dockers on the main register be singled out for such special treatment? I suppose that we had the answer from the hon. Member


for Kingston upon Hull, East, who made clear that once these extensions have been agreed there will be demands that the procedures be extended for others. Will the result be that members of trade unions with political leverage on the Labour Government will get for themselves the privileged conditions rightly available under the Dock Labour Scheme in days gone by but in modern days more questionable? Are these procedures to be extended right across the board?

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Gentleman has not been in for the debate. I would certainly give way to hon. Members who have taken the trouble to be present and to participate in the debate.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Gentleman was present for part of the time. I shall give way to him.

Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question I put to his right hon. Friend at the beginning of the debate? Are the Opposition saying that the present scheme is unsatisfactory, and is it their policy to change it irrespective of the extension proposed in the Bill?

Mr. Hayhoe: What we said clearly—

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that one. He said that I was not in the Chamber during the whole debate and he is perfectly correct. He is aware that hon. Members have to attend Committee meetings—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The hon. Member must know that is not a point of order.

Mr. Hayhoe: I understand that the hon. Gentleman was appearing on television. Therefore, we see where his priorities lie.
We argue that this Bill is also dangerous because, if all the extensions are made, it can give the dockers a stranglehold over the whole community. I have in mind the control of food supplies. This could be affected by an extended Dock Labour Scheme, and could be very damaging indeed to our country.
What possible purpose is there at this time in the Government extending the industrial leverage of a particular group of workers who at least over the years have shown themselves not to be in the van from the viewpoint of militancy and irresponsibility?
As to the question which the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asked me a moment ago, my right hon Friend made it absolutely clear that we believe it would be right, bearing in mind the particular problems that exist, for there to be an urgent inquiry into these matters. The last impartial major inquiry into the whole problem of the docks was held very many years ago, and conditions have changed very much since then. We would all be the better for the recommendations of an impartial inquiry.
What was the Secretary of State's main argument about this Bill? It was that it did not really mean what it said, and certainly did not mean what some of his supporters thought it meant. The Secretary of State said, in effect, "Do not worry. Trust us. We shall not let you down. You can amend the Bill later in Standing Committee." That was the Secretary of State's message to the Benches behind him. I thought that the Government Back Benchers were easily satisfied. Indeed, I was embarrassed for them in their eagerness to scoop up the crumbs given them by the Secretary of State.
We do not accept these assurances. We remember the assurances we have had from the Secretary of State in the past. We remember the Secretary of State's assurance that he would not be presiding over mass unemployment, yet that is what he is doing. We had his assurance that there would be legislation to deal with independent appeals against arbitrary exclusion or expulsion from trade unions. He now asserts with a loud voice and little conviction that he did not make such a commitment, but the record is clear and damaging, despite his efforts to grub among the small print to discover the odd weasel word in an attempt to provide himself with a loop-hole. The fact is that the currency of the right hon. Gentleman's assurances has been debased. His parliamentary coinage is counterfeit. We do not trust him.


Why has he not withdrawn the Bill and reintroduced it in an amended form?
The Bill is a devious, divisive and dangerous measure. It does not deserve a Second Reading. Let Parliament, by our vote tonight, defeat and bury this miserable Bill.

9.28 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): The basic aim of the Bill is to introduce a new Dock Labour Scheme and a modern definition of "dock work".
The debate has been very revealing of the position of the Conservative Party. We knew before the debate started that it was opposed to the Bill. We knew that it was critical of the existing Dock Labour Scheme. What we did not know is that the Conservatives are totally opposed to the existing Dock Labour Scheme and therefore, presumably, in favour of its abolition.
We were not made aware before today of the importance that the Conservatives attached to having an urgent inquiry into the position of Britain's docks. It may be due to some defect in my listening rather than in the expositions of Opposition Members, but I am not clear whether they want the urgent inquiry before they abolish the dock work regulation scheme or afterwards. But, since they insist that this inquiry should be impartial, I find it difficult to understand how they can reconcile the desirability of an impartial inquiry with the desirability of abolishing the Dock Labour Scheme. However, such is their position.
If it were the case that the Government wished merely to extend the existing dock work scheme, we should not have had to introduce this legislation. We have powers under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1946 which would enable us to extend the present scheme to those ports which are currently non-scheme ports. The reason why we are proposing not to use those powers but to bring in a new scheme is to be found in the technological developments in cargo handling which have taken place since the existing scheme was introduced, in the changes in shipping practices which have taken place and in the numerous decisions which have been taken on the legal

definition of "dock work" which have changed the scheme and, if anything, made it less appropriate to modern conditions.
I believe that it is the failure of the many attempts which have been made by the Transport and General Workers' Union to use existing statutory machinery which has led to many dock workers believing that there is no solution within the existing machinery to the serious problems of the ports. Of the 18 inquiries which have been undertaken and the legal appeals which have been held to try to establish a statutory right to dock work, 17 have resulted in there being a narrowing rather than a widening of the definition of "dock work" at a time when it was obvious to any impartial observer of the industry that the area in which the traditional work of cargo handling was being done was being extended considerably.
Delay by the Government and by Parliament in bringing forward the legislation that we are now considering can, in my view, only worsen the difficulties of dock employment and the commercial difficulties facing many port authorities.
From the introduction of the present scheme in 1947 up to the present date, it is acknowledged by those who have studied the matter, including a number of hon. Members who have spoken today, that there has been an enormous drop in the number of registered dock workers. There has been a drop from 73,000 registered dockers to 32,000, a reduction of 56 per cent. in the registered dock labour force.

Sir John Rodgers: What does that prove?

Mr. Booth: If the hon. Gentleman wants a straight answer, it proves that the claims of his right hon. and hon. Friends who say that holding a registered dock worker's card guarantees a job for life are absolute nonsense and no part of a reasonable debate on this subject.
In London the number of registered dock workers has dropped from more than 25,000 to fewer than 10,000. In Liverpool, it has dropped from 17,000 to 7,500. On the Clyde the number of registered dock workers has fallen to fewer than 20 per cent. of the number employed in 1947. It is worth noting in passing that the Clyde has a very


good industrial relations record in its docks. I question whether it would have been possible to achieve that sort of reduction in the labour forces in other industries. But it has been accomplished within the registered scheme ports. It is only the South Coast ports which show any increase in registered deck labour workers.
I believe, therefore, that we should drop this pretence that, somehow, there is a special protection embodied in the law which puts the registered dock worker in an unassailable position whereby he can carry on working for life in this industry whilst others bear the brunt of technological change. That bears no relationship to the true position.

Mr. Brittan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many dock workers in the scheme have been compulsorily made redundant?

Mr. Booth: Under the current working arrangements, none is being compulsorily made redundant. I contend that that is one of the reasons for the success of the scheme.

Mr. MacCormick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some estimate of how many other workers would be made redundant if the Bill were passed?

Mr. Booth: I shall certainly come to that issue, because it is central to many of the questions raised, but if hon. Members who take such delight in my answer really believe that one would make men redundant on that scale compulsorily and still have a tolerable industrial relations situation in the dock areas of this country, they do not understand the situation. The existing scheme sought to employ the very characteristics of dock work which bring about such rapid changes in labour requirements and can cause such movements in labour demand. Therefore, we must bear this in mind in considering the Bill.
Had that drop in employment which has taken place in the docks, and which, I hope, is now acknowledged, arisen solely from the combined effects of the improved productivity that has been achieved and from changes in shipping practice—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Gentleman care to make that remark on his feet? I take it that, since he is not

prepared to get up and say it, he will not mind my indicating to the House that his sedentary remarks were, if I understood them correctly, intended to indicate that the decrease in requirements for dock labour has not been achieved by improved productivity.

Mr. William Clark: The right hon. Gentleman has said there was an increase in productivity in the ports. Will he give some figures.

Mr. Booth: Yes, certainly, I shall come to figures of improvements in the ports because that is part of my case. I am saying at this stage that if the whole of the drop in labour requirements in Britain's ports had come about solely from the combined effect of improved productivity and changes in shipping practice, the dockers would have accepted that. They would have accepted redundancy in the way that other British workers accept it.
The reason why the dockers are not accepting redundancy on this scale without seeking changes in legislation is that they are seeing work which in the past has been done by them being transferred in certain cases to premises very near the quayside, very near the traditional place where they have practised their job. The House can best consider this by an analogy. Perhaps hon. Members who represent constituencies with large engineering works will tell me what effect would be of a major engineering employer saying "I am going to introduce new machinery for one of my manufacturing processes, not in my current works but in an empty warehouse up the road, and I will not give jobs to my current workers but will employ others there". That kind of redundancy would be regarded as intolerable. This would be true of any industry. It is this factor more than any other which has caused this difficulty in the ports.

Mr. MacCormick: Is that in any way an excuse for importing this ridiculous scheme over hundreds of miles across the sea to the port of Stornoway in the Western Isles?

Mr. Booth: That has no relevance to this question. We are giving very careful consideration to the position of small ports, and there is nothing in the Bill


which requires my right hon. Friend to extend the scheme to every small port in the country. In fact, we are examining and continuing to examine a number of small ports to take account of their special situation. We concede that it would not make sense to lay down the Dock Labour Scheme for a port which employs two or three workers for one day a month or a fortnight to do a bit of unloading from a ship. That is not the purport or the meaning of the scheme.

Mr. Brittan: Does it or does it not remain Government policy to implement the Bill so as to extend the scheme to all ports where there is a permanent work force?

Mr. Booth: What we have said and what we made clear in the consultative document is that it will be extended to all significant areas of third-party cargo handling. The existence of a permanent work force in a port is only one of the tests. It is certainly one of the things which would indicate whether there was some significant third-party cargo handling going on, as against a port which did not have a permanent work force, but I cannot attach any more importance than that to the hon. Gentleman's question.
Where the development of the new technologies of handling, particularly the introduction of containers, has resulted in work being moved to inland depots, that has been accepted by dockers as a valid reason why there should be a rundown in the registered dock labour force. If we apply the same tests to this industry as one would apply to other industries, we find broadly the same reactions to redundancy on this scale. Any means of enabling those who are redundant in one part of the industry to fill vacancies which arise in others must have important implications for recruitment, negotiation procedures and industrial relations. That is why what we are proposing as a means of enabling a new scheme to be introduced must be subject to careful checks and safeguards, some of which my right hon. Friend has described.
The first and most important is that, before a new scheme can be introduced at all, it has to be approved by both

Houses of Parliament. Till that is done, no Dock Labour Scheme areas can be designated under Clause 4(2).
Second, the procedures for recommendation under Clause 8 and Schedule 4 require the National Dock Labour Board, before it investigates any premises with a view to extending the scheme to them and classifying work in them, first to contact the employer, then to contact the unions concerned, to listen to their representations.
Before it goes ahead it has to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State to give 28 days' notice of its proposals, including proposals for classifying work. The Board must provide a second notice for that purpose and must again enable employers and unions to make representations, which would have to be conveyed to the Secretary of State. First, because of the sensitivity which rightly exists on these points, the Board, as the Bill makes clear, has to indicate where it is recommending work to be classified, the extent to which workers whose jobs are affected will be subject to transfer on to the extension register or subsequently on to the main register.
When the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) describes those on the extension register as second-class citizens without the protections of those on the main register, he should bear in mind the purpose of an extension register and of requiring a recommendation of the Board as to the period for which the register should exist.
It is no part of the Government's intention to create first- and second-class citizens in the dock industry. The purpose of having a period of extension register is that the necessary adjustments can be made and discussions take place to ensure that with a complete transfer of all those concerned to the register there are propertly regulated negotiating arrangements established. It will also ensure that unions and employers have time to work out between themselves the way in which they wish to make any changes—if any—in negotiation and procedure arrangements and to take account of the fact that the workers are becoming registered dock workers.

Mr. Hayhoe: What about the union point I raised—the question of what happens when the registered person on the


main register belongs to a different union from that of the closed shop operating at the place of the extension register? What are the necessary changes and conditions, and what is the time envisaged for transferring from the extension to the main register?

Mr. Booth: It is for the Board to recommend the period of time. I personally think that there should not be a long period of transition register. The people I have spoken to in the ports, and trade union officials in Glasgow, are thinking in terms of two years. I cannot bind the Board to take a similar view on the period of extension register. There will be cases, including some of the more complex ones raised by my hon. Friends, where workers will have to make up their minds through their union machinery whether they wish to continue the existing basis of union representation or whether to have a joint representation in their new place of employment. They will also have to decide whether to seek arrangements which would mean that people coming into the scheme would transfer to unions already in the plant. These are arrangements which must be worked out.
My hon. Friends have posed a number of questions which fall under two broad headings. The first of the headings, which goes to the root of the genuine concern about the Bill's proposals, concerns requests for an assurance that the legislation will not create redundancies among non-dockers employed by importers of meats and other foodstuffs. I emphasise my right hon. Friend's statement that all workers directly affected by the extension of the scheme covered by an order under Clause 11 will be placed on the extension register where they will retain all their existing statutory safeguards against redundancy and their other employment protections. The trade unions concerned have accepted that our intention is that existing employees should not be sacked and replaced by registered dock workers. If the Bill can be improved in Committee to make that intention clearer, more readily understood and accepted, that is what we shall seek to achieve.
I have also been asked for an assurance that the legislation will not create monopoly conditions for members of particular

unions. I understand that my hon. Friends are concerned about the dock workers' section of the T & GWU in this respect. It is not the Government's intention in the Bill to influence the decisions of employees about their trade union membership. That is a matter for them.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: rose—

Mr. Booth: I shall give way in a moment.
It is not the case, as some of the hon. Members who are dedicated to misrepresenting the Bill have stated, that any part of the scheme or customs and practices allowed under the scheme mean that registered dock workers can only be members of the T & GWU. Registered dock workers are already represented—

Mr. Cormack: rose—

Mr. Booth: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
In some areas registered dock workers are already represented by unions other than the Transport and General Workers' Union. The TUC and the unions affiliated to it accept that the question of trade union membership is a matter for the unions and should not be covered by this legislation.

Mr. Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman is speaking at great length about intentions. Intentions and legislation are often very different things. Will he explain how he will ensure that these laudable intentions become the law of the land?

Mr. Booth: The machinery of the Bill must match the intentions. That is why the Bill proposes to open up the membership of the National Dock Labour Board. It wants to include employers, other than those presently represented, and unionists, other than those who are already represented. The machinery for the examination of the scheme allows representations on a much wider basis than had previously been the case. It is the intention that the National Dock Labour Scheme of the future will take account of the wider areas in which transport work is done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) asked about the position of those employed in warehouses and cold-storage depots who are


members of other unions. I hope that I have succeeded in assuring him that a decision to classify work in a warehouse or cold-storage depot does not result in any requirement to change union membership. It would not in any way preclude members from being represented by their unions. However, it carries with it the possibility that unions which cover an existing membership at a place to which the scheme might be extended can be represented at discussions with the local dock labour board. The Bill also opens up the possibility of other unions being represented on the National Dock Labour Board.

Mr. James Johnson: Is the Minister assuring the House that if there is any dubiety about this he will accept amendments in Committee?

Mr. Booth: I am giving the House the assurance that in an examination of any of those areas which may be classified as "dock work" as a result of the Bill and particularly Clause 8 of the Bill we shall seek to ensure that unions and employers participate fully in representations at all stages. We shall also seek to ensure that nothing in the legislation will preclude those employees from working in areas which may be classified, and from retaining their representations and their union membership for the purpose of continuing to represent them when they are on the transition register or in a later position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) expressed two other doubts. One was about the power which the Bill gives to the Secretary of State and the National Dock Labour Board. The National Dock Labour Board will be extended to reflect the wider considerations in the Bill. The Bill imposes much greater restrictions on the Secretary of State than any other piece of legislation of this size. It requires him to submit to the affirmative resolution procedure an order on the Board's borrowing limit, the whole of the new Dock Labour Scheme, any order to extend cargo-handling zones, orders amending the new scheme and orders classifying or declassifying. All that is subject to the control of the House. Therefore, we are sensitive to the importance of the issue and of the House being able to judge on these matters

before the scheme is extended. It is important to understand that although the significance of the scheme is grave, so is its intention and practice to involve further employers, trade unions and this House in an involvement and a control such as this House has not had previously.

Mr. MacCormick: rose—

Mr. Booth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me and will not regard me as being discourteous if I do not give way. There are one or two arguments that I want to answer.
It is an important part of the criticisms that have been made about the Bill today that it is suggested by the opponents of the Bill that if non-scheme ports become scheme ports their costs will rise and they will be priced out of the market. That is their argument. I can answer that most succinctly by pointing to the increased cargoes which have been attained by the scheme ports over the period from 1969 to 1974. If hon. Members care to check the records, they will find that over that period Tees and Hartlepool increased its tonnage of cargo by 23.5 per cent., Port Talbot by 43 per cent., Goole by 43 per cent., Boston by 56 per cent., Great Yarmouth by 74 per cent. and—I know that this will endear the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) to my argument—the scheme port of Lowestoft increased its cargo tonnage by 53 per cent. Immingham increased its tonnage by 106 per cent. and Southampton did so by 122 per cent.
It seems to me, therefore, that, if the costs of scheme ports are high, this has not prevented them advancing in competition with other ports. I believe that these allegations of high costs for the scheme are based upon misconception of the scheme and the Bill. Neither the Bill nor the scheme impose either wage rates for dockers or earnings levels.
Under the present scheme rates of pay and conditions are determined not by the National Dock Labour Board but by local agreement and through a national joint industrial council. These are the things which control the wages. Under this system, pay varies considerably between one scheme port and another, and in small ports rates for comparable work throughout the port are very often negotiated, while in larger ports such as


London and Liverpool it is quite common to find a whole number of company agreements determining dockers' pay.

Mr. MacCormick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Booth: No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth said that the consultative document made it clear that there would be a five-mile limit but that there was no hint in that of the extension. I ask him to read paragraph 30 of that document, which makes it absolutely clear that the Secretary of State may ask the Board—

Mr. MacCormick: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Booth: I assure the House that my right hon. Friend and I have talked to shop stewards of a great many unions other than the Transport and General Workers' Union, and to unions other than dock workers' unions. I have spoken to shop stewards in cold stores and to

shop stewards at warehouses. What I find is that what they are saying is not what the Opposition are saying tonight.

A new scheme is needed. It is needed to face the challenge and to end frustration and suffering under the limitations of the present scheme. It is needed to recognise an ILO convention and to involve more unions and employees.

In that spirit, therefore, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Cormack: This has been the biggest load of rubbish that we have ever been subjected to. A Minister of the Crown advocating—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 305.

Division No. 57.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m


Abse, Leo
Clemitson, Ivor
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Allaun, Frank
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Anderson, Donald
Cohen, Stanley
Evans, John (Newton)


Archer, Peter
Coleman, Donald
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Armstrong, Ernest
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Faulds, Andrew


Ashley, Jack
Concannon, J. D.
Fernyhough, Rt Hn E.


Ashton, Joe
Conlan, Bernard
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)


Atkinson, Norman
Corbett, Robin
Flannery, Martin


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Crawshaw, Richard
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bates, Alf
Cronin, John
Ford, Ben


Bean, R. E.
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Forrester, John


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cryer, Bob
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Freeson, Reginald


Bishop, E. S.
Dalyell, Tam
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davidson, Arthur
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Boardman, H.
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
George, Bruce


Booth, Albert
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Gilbert, Dr John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ginsburg, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Davies, Cliaron[...] (Hackney C)
Golding, John


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Deakins, Eric
Gould, Bryan


Bradley, Tom
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Gourlay, Harry


Bray, Dr Jeremy
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Graham, Ted


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Delargy, Hugh
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Grant, John (Islington C)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dempsey, James
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Doig, Peter
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Buchan, Norman
Dormand, J. D.
Hardy, Peter


Buchanan, Richard
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Dunn, James A.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dunnett, Jack
Hatton, Frank


Campbell, Ian
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Canavan, Dennis
Eadie, Alex
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cant, R. B.
Edge, Geoff
Heffer, Eric S.


Carmichael, Neil
Edwards, Robert (Woiv SE)
Hooley, Frank


Carter, Ray
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Horam, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Cartwright, John
English, Michael
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Ennals, David
Huckfield, Les




Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Meacher, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mendelson, John
Sillars, James


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mikardo, Ian
Silverman, Julius


Hunter, Adam
Millan, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Small, William


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Snape, Peter


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Molloy, William
Spearing, Nigel


Janner, Greville
Moonman, Eric
Spriggs, Leslie


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stallard, A. W.


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stoddart, David


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Moyle, Roland
Stott, Roger


John, Brynmor
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Strang, Gavin


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Newens, Stanley
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Noble, Mike
Swain, Thomas


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Oakes, Gordon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ogden, Eric
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Judd, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Kaufman, Gerald
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Kelley, Richard
Orbach, Maurice
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Kerr, Russell
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tierney, Sydney


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ovenden, John
Tinn, James


Kinnock, Neil
Owen, Dr David
Tomlinson, John


Lambie, David
Padley, Walter
Tomney, Frank


Lamborn, Harry
Palmer, Arthur
Torney, Tom


Lamond, James
Park, George
Tuck, Raphael


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Parker, John
Urwin, T. W.


Leadbitter, Ted
Parry, Robert
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Lee, John
Pavitt, Laurie
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Pendry, Tom
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Perry, Ernest
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Ward, Michael


Lipton, Marcus
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Watkins, David


Litterick, Tom
Prescott, John
Watkinson, John


Loyden, Eddie
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Weetch, Ken


Luard, Evan
Price, William (Rugby)
Weitzman, David


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Radice, Giles
Wellbeloved, James


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Richardson, Miss Jo
White, James (Pollok)


McCartney, Hugh
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitehead, Phillip


McElhone, Frank
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Whitlock, William


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Mackintosh, John P.
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Maclennan, Robert
Rooker, J. W.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Roper, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


McNamara, Kevin
Rose, Paul B.
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Madden, Max
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Magee, Bryan
Rowlands, Ted
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Sandelson, Neville
Woodall, Alec


Mahon, Simon
Sedgemore, Brian
Woof, Robert


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Selby, Harry
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Marks, Kenneth
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Marquand, David
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)



Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Maynard, Miss Joan






NOES


Adley, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Aitken, Jonathan
Bottomley, Peter
Channon, Paul


Alison, Michael
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Churchill, W. S.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Arnold, Tom
Bradford, Rev Robert
Clark, William (Croydon S)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Braine, Sir Bernard
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Awdry, Daniel
Brittan, Leon
Clegg, Walter


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Cockcroft, John


Baker, Kenneth
Brotherton, Michael
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)


Banks, Robert
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cope, John


Bell, Ronald
Bryan, Sir Paul
Cordle, John H.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Cormack, Patrick


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Buck, Antony
Corrie, John


Benyon, W.
Budgen, Nick
Costain, A. P.


Berry, Hon Anthony
Bulmer, Esmond
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)


Biffen, John
Burden, F. A.
Crawford, Douglas


Biggs-Davison, John
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Critchley, Julian


Blaker, Peter
Carlisle, Mark
Crouch, David


Body, Richard
Carson, John
Crowder, F. P.







Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Reid, George


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kilfedder, James
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Drayson, Burnaby
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridsdale, Julian


Dunlop, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Durant, Tony
Kirk, Peter
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Dykes, Hugh
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Knight, Mrs Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knox, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Elliott, Sir William
Lamont, Norman
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Emery, Peter
Lane, David
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Eyre, Reginald
Lawrence, Ivan
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawson, Nigel
Sainsbury, Tim


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott, Nicholas


Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Ian
Scott-Hopkins, James


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Luce, Richard
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacCormick, Iain
Shepherd, Colin


Fookes, Miss Janet
McCrindle, Robert
Shersby, Michael


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McCusker, H.
Silvester, Fred


Fox, Marcus
Macfarlane, Neil
Sims, Roger


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
MacGregor, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Freud, Clement
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Smith, Cyril (Rochda1e)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Madel, David
Speed, Keith


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spence, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Marten, Neil
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mates, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mather, Carol
Sproat, Iain


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Maude, Angus
Stainton, Keith


Goodhart, Philip
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stanbrook, Ivor


Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray
Stanley, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Gorst, John
Mayhew, Patrick
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mills, Peter
Stokes, John


Gray, Hamish
Miscampbell, Norman
Stonehouse, Rt Hon John


Griffiths, Eldon
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Moate, Roger
Tapsell, Peter


Grist, Ian
Molyneaux, James
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Grylls, Michael
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hall, Sir John
Montgomery, Fergus
Tebbit, Norman


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morgan, Geraint
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Hannam, John
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Thompson, George


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hastings, Stephen
Mudd, David
Trotter Neville


Havers, Sir Michael
Neave, Airey
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hawkins, Paul
Nelson, Anthony
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hayhoe, Barney
Neubert, Michael
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Newton, Tony
Viggers, Peter


Henderson, Douglas
Normanton, Tom
Wainwright, Richard (Colne[...] V)


Heseltine, Michael
Nott, John
Wakeham, John


Hicks, Robert
Onslow, Cranley
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Higgins, Terence L.
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Holland, Philip
Osborn, John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Hooson, Emlyn
Page, John (Harrow West)
Wall, Patrick


Hordern, Peter
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Walters, Dennis


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Paisley, Rev Ian
Warren, Kenneth


Howell, David (Guildford)
Pardoe, John
Watt, Hamish


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Weatherill, Bernard


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Penhaligon, David
Wells, John


Hunt, John
Percival, Ian
Welsh, Andrew


Hurd, Douglas
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner
Wiggin, Jerry


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


James, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Winterton, Nicholas


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Jessel, Toby
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Raison, Timothy
Younger, Hon George


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rathbone, Tim



Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jopling, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Mr. Cecil Parkinson and


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rees-Davis, W. R.
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 304.

Division No. 58.
AYES
10.16 p.m


Abse, Leo
Eadie, Alex
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Allaun, Frank
Edge, Geoff
Leadbitter, Ted


Anderson, Donald
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lee, John


Archer, Peter
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Armstrong, Ernest
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Ashley, Jack
English, Michael
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Ashton, Joe
Ennals, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lipton, Marcus


Atkinson, Norman
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Litterick, Tom


Bagier, Gordon A. [...]
Evans, John (Newton)
Loyden, Eddie


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Luard, Evan


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Faulds, Andrew
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Bates, Alf
Fernyhough, Rt Hn E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Bean, R. E.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
McCartney, Hugh


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Flannery, Martin
McElhone, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Bishop, E. S.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor


Boardman, H.
Ford, Ben
Mackintosh, John P.


Booth, Albert
Forrester, John
Maclennan, Robert


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McNamara, Kevin


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Freeson, Reginald
Madden, Max


Bradley, Tom
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Magee, Bryan


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
George, Bruce
Mahon, Simon


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Gilbert, Dr John
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Ginsburg, David
Marks, Kenneth


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Golding, John
Marquand, David


Buchan, Norman
Gould, Bryan
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Buchanan, Richard
Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Graham, Ted
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Meacher, Michael


Campbell, Ian
Grocott, Bruce
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Canavan, Dennis
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mendelson, John


Cant, R. B.
Hardy, Peter
Mikardo, Ian


Carmichael, Neil
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce


Carter, Ray
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Cartwright, John
Hatton, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Molloy, William


Clemitson, Ivor
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Moonman, Eric


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cohen, Stanley
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Coleman, Donald
Horam, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Moyle, Roland


Concannon, J. D.
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Conlan, Bernard
Huckfield, Les
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Newens, Stanley


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Noble, Mike


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Oakes, Gordon


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric


Crawshaw, Richard
Hunter, Adam
O'Halloran, Michael


Cronin, John
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Orbach, Maurice


Cryer, Bob
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ovenden, John


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Janner, Greville
Owen, Dr David


Dalyell, Tam
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Padley, Walter


Davidson, Arthur
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Park, George


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Parker, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
John, Brynmor
Parry, Robert


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)[...]
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Pavitt, Laurie


Deakins, Eric
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Pendry, Tom


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Perry, Ernest


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Judd, Frank
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Dempsey, James
Kaufman, Gerald
Prescott, John


Doig, Peter
Kelley, Richard
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Dormand, J. D.
Kerr, Russell
Price, William (Rugby)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Radice, Giles


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kinnock, Neil
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Dunn, James A.
Lambie, David
Richardson, Miss Jo


Dunnett, Jack
Lamborn, Harry
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lamond, James
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)




Robertson, John (Paisley)




Roderick, Caerwyn
Stallard, A. W.
Watkins, David


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Watkinson, John


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Stoddart, David
Weetch, Ken


Rooker, J. W.
Stott, Roger
Weitzman, David


Roper, John
Strang, Gavin
Wellbeloved, James


Rose, Paul B.
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
White, James (Pollok)


Rowlands, Ted
Swain, Thomas
Whitehead, Phillip


Sandelson, Neville
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Whitlock, William


Sedgemore, Brian
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Selby, Harry
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Tierney, Sydney
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Tinn, James
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Tomlinson, John
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Tomney, Frank
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Torney, Tom
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Sillars, James
Tuck, Raphael
Woodall, Alec


Silverman, Julius
Urwin, T. W.
Woof, Robert


Skinner, Dennis
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Small, William
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)



Snape, Peter
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Spearing, Nigel
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Spriggs, Leslie
Ward, Michael
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Crowder, F. P.
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Aitken, Jonathan
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hastings, Stephen


Alison, Michael
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Havers, Sir Michael


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hawkins, Paul


Arnold, Tom
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hayhoe, Barney


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Drayson, Burnaby
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Awdry, Daniel
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Henderson, Douglas


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Dunlop, John
Heseltine, Michael


Baker, Kenneth
Durant, Tony
Hicks, Robert


Banks, Robert
Dykes, Hugh
Higgins, Terence L.


Bell, Ronald
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Holland, Philip


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hooson, Emlyn


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Elliott, Sir William
Hordern, Peter


Benyon, W.
Emery, Peter
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Berry, Hon Anthony
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Biffen, John
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Biggs-Davison, John
Eyre, Reginald
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Blaker, Peter
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hunt, John


Body, Richard
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hurd, Douglas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Farr, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bottomley, Peter
Fell, Anthony
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
James, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Jessel, Toby


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Brittan, Leon
Fookes, Miss Janet
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Brotherton, Michael
Fox, Marcus
Jopling, Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Bryan, Sir Paul
Freud, Clement
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fry, Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Buck, Antony
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Kershaw, Anthony


Budges, Nick
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Kilfedder, James


Bulmer, Esmond
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Kimball, Marcus


Burden, F. A.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Carlisle, Mark
Glyn, Dr Alan
Kirk, Peter


Carson, John
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Goodhart, Philip
Knight, Mrs Jill


Channon, Paul
Goodhew, Victor
Knox, David


Churchill, W. S.
Goodlad, Alastair
Lamont, Norman


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sution)
Gorst, John
Lane, David


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Clegg, Walter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Lawrence, Ivan


Cockcroft, John
Gray, Hamish
Lawson, Nigel


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Griffiths, Eldon
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Cope, John
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Cordle, John H.
Grist, Ian
Lloyd, Ian


Cormack, Patrick
Grylls, Michael
Loveridge, John


Corrie, John
Hall, Sir John
Luce, Richard


Costain, A. P.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
MacCormick, Iain


Crawford, Douglas
Hampson, Dr Keith
McCrindle, Robert


Critchley, Julian
Hannam, John
McCusker, H.


Crouch, David
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Macfarlane, Neil







MacGregor, John
Pink, R. Bonner
Stanbrook, Ivor


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Stanley, John


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Madel, David
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Raison, Timothy
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Marten, Neil
Rathbone, Tim
Stokes, John


Mates, Michael
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mather, Carol
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Tapsell, Peter


Maude, Angus
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Reid, George
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Mawby, Ray
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Tebbit, Norman


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mayhew, Patrick
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Ridsdale, Julian
Thompson, George


Mills, Peter
Rifkind, Malcolm
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Miscampbell, Norman
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Townsend, Cyril D.


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Trotter Neville


Moate, Roger
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Molyneaux, James
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Monro, Hector
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Montgomery, Fergus
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Viggers, Peter


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Wakeham, John


Morgan, Geraint
Royle, Sir Anthony
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Sainsbury, Tim
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Scott, Nicholas
Wall, Patrick


Mudd, David
Scott-Hopkins, James
Walters, Dennis


Neave, Airey
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Warren, Kenneth


Nelson, Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Watt, Hamish


Neubert, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Weatherill, Bernard


Newton, Tony
Shepherd, Colin
Wells, John


Normanton, Tom
Shersby, Michael
Welsh, Andrew


Nott, John
Silvester, Fred
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Onslow, Cranley
Sims, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry


Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Sinclair, Sir George
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Osborn, John
Skeet, T. H. H.
Winterton, Nicholas


Page, John (Harrow West)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Speed, Keith
Younger, Hon George


Pardoe, John
Spence, John



Pattie, Geoffrey
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Penhaligon, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Percival, Ian
Sproat, Iain
Mr. Cecil Parkinson.


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stainton, Keith

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Committee

of the whole House.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins]:—

The House divided: Ayes, 303; Noes 312.

Division No. 59.]
AYES
[10.31 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bryan, Sir Paul
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)


Alison, Michael
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Buck, Antony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Tom
Budgen, Nick
Drayson, Burnaby


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bulmer, Esmond
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Awdry, Daniel
Burden, F. A.
Dunlop, John


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Durant, Tony


Baker, Kenneth
Carlisle, Mark
Dykes, Hugh


Banks, Robert
Carson, John
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Bell, Ronald
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Channon, Paul
Elliott, Sir William


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Churchill, W. S.
Emery, Peter


Benyon, W.
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)


Biffen, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Eyre, Reginald


Biggs-Davison, John
Clegg, Walter
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Blaker, Peter
Cockcroft, John
Fairgrieve, Russell


Body, Richard
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Farr, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cope, John
Fell, Anthony


Bottomley, Peter
Cordle, John H.
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Cormack, Patrick
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Corrie, John
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Costain, A. P.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Braine, Sir Bernard
Crawford, Douglas
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brittan, Leon
Critchley, Julian
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Crouch, David
Fox, Marcus


Brotherton, Michael
Crowder, F. P.
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)




Freud, Clement
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fry, Peter
Lloyd, Ian
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Loveridge, John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Luce, Richard
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
MacCormick, Iain
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McCrindle, Robert
Royle, Sir Anthony


Glyn, Dr Alan
McCusker, H.
Sainsbury, Tim


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Macfarlane, Neil
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Goodhart, Philip
MacGregor, John
Scott, Nicholas


Goodhew, Victor
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Goodlad, Alastair
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Madel, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shepherd, Colin


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Marten, Neil
Shersby, Michael


Gray, Hamish
Mates, Michael
Silvester, Fred


Griffiths, Eldon
Mather, Carol
Sims, Roger


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Maude, Angus
Sinclair, Sir George


Grist, Ian
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Skeet, T. H. H.


Grylls, Michael
Mawby, Ray
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hall, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mayhew, Patrick
Speed, Keith


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spence, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Hannam, John
Mills, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Miscampbell, Norman
Sproat, Iain


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stainton, Keith


Hastings, Stephen
Moate, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Havers, Sir Michael
Molyneaux, James
Stanley, John


Hawkins, Paul
Monro, Hector
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Henderson, Douglas
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Heseltine, Michael
Morgan, Geraint
Stokes, John


Hicks, Robert
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Tapsell, Peter


Holland, Philip
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Hooson, Emlyn
Mudd, David
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hordern, Peter
Neave, Airey
Tebbit, Norman


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nelson, Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Howell, David (Guildford)
Neubert, Michael
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Newton, Tony
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Normanton, Tom
Thompson, George


Hunt, John
Nott, John
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Hurd, Douglas
Onslow, Cranley
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Trotter Neville


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Osborn, John
Tugendhat, Christopher


James, David
Page, John (Harrow West)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Jessel, Toby
Paisley, Rev Ian
Viggers, Peter


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pardoe, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Wakeham, John


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Penhaligon, David
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Jopling, Michael
Percival, Ian
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pink, R. Bonner
Wall, Patrick


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Walters, Dennis


Kershaw, Anthony
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Warren, Kenneth


Kilfedder, James
Prior, Rt Hon James
Watt, Hamish


Kimball, Marcus
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Weatherill, Bernard


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Raison, Timothy
Wells, John


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rathbone, Tim
Welsh, Andrew


Kirk, Peter
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Wiggin, Jerry


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Knox, David
Reid, George
Winterton, Nicholas


Lamont, Norman
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Lane, David
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Younger, Hon George


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas



Lawrence, Ivan
Ridsdale, Julian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lawson, Nigel
Rifkind, Malcolm
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Mr. Cecil Parkinson.



Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood


Allaun, Frank
Atkinson, Norman
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)


Anderson, Donald
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bidwell, Sydney


Archer, Peter
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bishop, E. S.


Armstrong, Ernest
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Ashley, Jack
Bates, Alf
Boardman, H.


Ashton, Joe
Bean, R. E.
Booth, Albert







Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Gilbert, Dr John
Maynard, Miss Joan


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Ginsburg, David
Meacher, Michael


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Golding, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Bradley, Tom
Gould, Bryan
Mendelson, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gourlay, Harry
Mikardo, Ian


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Graham, Ted
Millan, Bruce


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Grocott, Bruce
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Molloy, William


Buchanan, Richard
Hardy, Peter
Moonman, Eric


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. Cardiff SE)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Campbell, Ian
Hatton, Frank
Moyle, Roland


Canavan, Dennis
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Cant, R. B.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Carmichael, Neil
Heffer, Eric S.
Newens, Stanley


Carter, Ray
Hooley, Frank
Noble, Mike


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Horam, John
Oakes, Gordon


Cartwright, John
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Ogden, Eric


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
O'Halloran, Michael


Clemitson, Ivor
Huckfield, Les
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Orbach, Maurice


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ovenden, John


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Dr David


Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam
Padley, Walter


Conlan, Bernard
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Palmer, Arthur


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Park, George


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Parker, John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Parry, Robert


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Janner, Greville
Pavitt, Laurie


Crawshaw, Richard
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Cronin, John
Jegar, Mrs Lena
Pendry, Tom


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest


Cryer, Bob
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
John, Brynmor
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Prescott, John


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Radice, Giles


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Richardson, Miss Jo


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Deakins, Eric
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kerr, Russell
Robertson, John (Paisley)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roderick, Caerwyn


Delargy, Hugh
Kinnock, Neil
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Dell Rt Hon Edmund
Lambie, David
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dempsey, James
Lamborn, Harry
Rooker, J. W.


Doig, Peter
Lamond, James
Roper, John


Dormand, J. D.
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rose, Paul B.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lee, John
Rowlands, Ted


Dunn, James A.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sandelson, Neville


Dunnett, Jack
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Sedgemore, Brian


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Selby, Harry


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Edge, Geoff
Lipton, Marcus
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Litterick, Tom
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Loyden, Eddie
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Luard, Evan
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


English, Michael
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Ennals, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Sillars, James


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McCartney, Hugh
Silverman, Julius


Evans, John (Newton)
McElhone, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Small, William


Faulds, Andrew
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Fernyhough, Rt Hn E.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Snape, Peter


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackintosh, John P.
Spearing, Nigel


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Maclennan, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Flannery, Martin
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stallard, A. W.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McNamara, Kevin
Stewart, Rt Hon M. Fulham


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Madden, Max
Stoddart, David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Magee, Bryan
Stott, Roger


Ford, Ben
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Strang, Gavin


Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marks, Kenneth
Swain, Thomas


Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


George, Bruce
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)




Thorne, Stan (Preston South)







Tierney, Sydney
Watkins, David
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Tinn, James
Watkinson, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Tomlinson, John
Weetch, Ken
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Tomney, Frank
Weitzman, David
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Torney, Tom
Wellbeloved, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Tuck, Raphael
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Woodall, Alec


Urwin, T. W.
White, James (Pollok)
Woof, Robert


Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Whitehead, Phillip
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Whitlock, William
Young, David (Bolton E)


Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick



Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Ward, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Mr. James Hamilton


Question accordingly negatived.


Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

DOCK WORK REGULATION [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to reconstitute the National Dock Labour Board and make further provision for regulating the allocation and performance of the work of cargo-handling in and about the ports of Great Britain, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increased administrative expenses of the Secretary of State which are attributable to provisions of that Act and of any sums required by him—

(i) for making loans to the Board up to a maximum amount outstanding at any one time by way of principal of £10 million or such higher amount not exceeding £30 million as may be specified by order;
(ii) for making grants to the Board towards their expenses in pursuance of provisions of the Act requiring them to make reports and recommendations to the Secretary of State; and
(iii) for making payments to and in respect of the chairman and vice chairman of the Board by way of salaries, fees, allowances, pensions and gratuities, and compensation on leaving office; and


(b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by the Secretary of State by way of repayment of loans made by him to the Board or its predecessor, and interest thereon.—[Mr. Foot.]

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The Money Resolution does not involve a large amount of money, but I think that the House will wish to oppose it. I certainly have some questions to ask about it. I approach it more in anger than in sorrow because, small though the sum is, the purposes for which it is destined should have been avoided. It comes ill from the Government to seek public money for the purposes of the Bill to which we have just—only just—given a reluctant Second Reading.
The National Dock Labour Board last year cost the taxpayer £2 million. It supports 516 people, 338 in administration, 62 in nursing and 116 in manual labour. The Bill would add another £150,000 and another 25 people. I wonder why we should incur further ex-

penditure and add to the number of people employed by the State for purposes which are entirely commercial and which should be able to earn in the market the remuneration which it is necessary to pay.
I cannot find from the Board's accounts what the chairman and vice-chairman are paid. In the best practice of private enterprise, the salaries of directors have to be specified by law—how many fall into which bracket of income. Why in the public sector are the accounts so sloppy and slipshod that we are not told what these people earn?
The Bill tells us that the moneys comprised in the resolution are to cover the salary of the chairman and vice-chairman. Doing the arithmetic according to the Bill, it seems that they will get £40,000 between them. Is that right? We are not told in the Bill or in the accounts of the previous Board.
The Secretary of State is a tribune of egalitarianism. Does he intend that the chairman of the Board of the future should be paid a large sum of this sort? We want to know not because we disagree with his being paid a proper salary but because it accords odd with the right hon. Gentleman's principles, just as the payment of £40,000 a year to Mr. Alex Park, the managing director of British Leyland, accords odd with his principles. Why can the right hon. Gentleman parade his egalitarianism in some quarters?—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not a debate on a Money Resolution limited to what is in the resolution and not what is in the Bill? Surely the debate is going too wide if we are to ask what compensation was or was not paid to a director of Leyland. I do not want to know, and I am sure that my hon. Friends do not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Paragraph (a)(iii) says:
for making payments to and in respect of the chairman and vice chairman of the Board by way of salaries, fees, allowances, pensions and gratuities, and compensation on leaving office".
Therefore, I think that the hon. Gentleman is in order.

Mr. Lewis: I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that


paragraph does not apply to Leyland. The resolution is headed "Dock Work Regulation [Money]". It is true that British Leyland is an important business, and one day we may have the chance to debate it, but I suggest that this is not the time to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is probably drawing too fine a point. I think that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was using that as an illustration in his argument.

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am disappointed in the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), who is usually so keen to rake over other people's salaries. I am sorry that he did not agree with my point, but rather than move remotely out of order I leave it there and come to the more important point that the loans under the resolution are £10 million, which can be increased to £30 million by order. The loans are for severance pay and for helping, by compensation payments, dockers who have to leave the industry. That is a cause for which many people will feel great sympathy, and I am one.
We have already spent £2¾ million of public money on this. It is easing the problem of overmanning in the docks by encouraging dockers to leave. Therefore, I think that the House will support the general purpose, as it has done in the past. But I am astonished to find in the Board's report that 134 sons of dockers were taken on the permanent register in 1974 and 278 sons of dockers were taken on the supplementary register, making a total of 412, and thereby swelling the ranks. I understood that the point of the money was to reduce the number of dockers. Therefore, why do we have a Board which increases the number by the hereditary principle?
Who am I to talk about the hereditary principle? Who is the Secretary of State to talk about it? I remember the right hon. Gentleman at his parliamentary best and most eloquent on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, engaging with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr Powell) in a major operation to preserve the hereditary composition of another place. I supported him. Little did I believe that his motive was so

pure and simple—that he believed in the hereditary principle. It runs through his whole lineage, his noble features, the look of aristocratic superiority on his face.
Now we know that the Secretary of State is arch-king of the hereditary principle. It is enshrined in this Money Resolution—£30 million for hereditary, for prolonging families of dockers, generation after generation working their fiddles, overmanning, operating their restrictive practices, father after son, until we reach the fourteenth in line. That is the right hon. Gentleman's contribution to the industrial relations and productivity of the country.
Why should we subsidise this? Why should we provide £30 million in loans and £2 million in annual grants? Why should we, when the ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp do not take subsidies, make contributions to the national finances of Belgium and Holland? Why is it that they have grown tenfold whereas our dock industry has shrunk by the same multiplier? Why is it that we should have to subsidise when those countries can draw from the revenues of their docks to support other ailing industries?
It is because we have enshrined practices of employment and subsidy—and, indeed, restrictive practices—in our legislation which make it impossible to operate our docks profitably. If that is the reason, and if by any chance the Secretary of State agrees that that is in some measure the reason, to pass the Bill and this Money Resolution is to add further impediments to the recovery of Britain's transport industry.
Therefore, the money which the House is being asked to vote is deliberately counter-productive. It is the payment of money by this House to slow down efficiency and restrict our progress. It is the Bill of Ludd, and the payment for it is the money which Ludd has demanded from those who work harder and more effectively in our community.
For those reasons, I suggest that it would be unwise for the House to pass this Money Resolution.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Dodsworth: I ask the House to reject the resolution on the ground that


it is inappropriate, uncertain and misleading.
I want to question the way in which the resolution is put before the House. It states:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to reconstitute the National Dock Labour Board and make further provision for regulating the allocation and performance of the work of cargo-handling in and about the ports of Great Britain, it is expedient to authorise
The resolution then lists the matters referred to in Clauses 3 and 13 of the Bill.
It is strange that we should be asked to approve a resolution which is certain in sums of money but uncertain in respect of the legislation to which it refers. I understand that Her Majesty's recommendation must be signified before the Bill goes into Standing Committee, where the expenditure provisions are dealt with in detail. Parliament, however, has no authority to spend money on its own initiative without Crown consent. Parliament has a duty to act as a check on Government spending. Hence the necessity for Money Resolutions.
However, as no money, approved or not, can be spent until after the Bill has received Royal Assent, why is it so vital for Crown approval of expenditure to be taken immediately after the Second Reading debate? Surely the mere fact of reaching the Committee stage does not involve the spending of any money. It may be that there is a clear exposition of the procedure that I do not understand, but that is the point that I have sought to raise. I should like to be clear about it.
It seems to me a curiously inappropriate time. If the resolution is approved, the sums of money are set, and whatever changes are made in the Bill will surely require that there be a further Money Resolution, which will require yet another debate. Putting it at its best, it seems an unnecessary duplication and a misuse of the time of the House.
A further point to which I want to refer is the procedure of the utilisation of affirmative orders for increasing the expenditure of the House. It is made clear in this case that there shall be a limit of £30 million, but that we begin with £10 million and there is the right, by order of the Secretary of State and

subject to affirmative order of the House, to increase it. I should like to know exactly how the sum of £10 million is calculated and how the sum of £30 million is calculated. Perhaps we would then have some indication from the Minister of when we might expect the next application. What is the merit of £10 million now and £30 million in total? There must be a basis of calculating those figures, and the House is entitled to know what it is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has referred to the purpose of these loans. I quote from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum:
The amount of additional loans that may be required is dependent on the extent to which further run-down of the Labour force becomes necessary.
What forecast has the Secretary of State made of the run-down of the Labour force? What levels of redundancy and severance pay are we to expect?
Furthermore, I find it a curious choice of phrase that we should think in terms of financing payments of this nature by way of loan. After all, once they are given, severance pay and redundancy pay are lost and gone—paid out. Am I right in assuming that this is a way of fudging the figures of public expenditure? This is a cost. It is a public expenditure which should be written off rather than referred to as a loan and a borrowing.
I should like to refer to one last item. The resolution refers to the Bill. That refers to the further levies which may be exacted from dock employers. That is also part of the operation of the finance. We should like to know the amount of the levy that is expected to be charged upon employers. What is the revenue that is likely to be raised, and how is that money likely to be spent?
On those three grounds I hope that the House will reject this inappropriate resolution.

11.3 p.m.

Mrs. Lynda Chalker: During the last six hours I have wondered and wondered how any democratic Government, whatever their hue, could try to put dock work into a dreamland of economic unreality while the rest of our work force, particularly on Merseyside, is struggling against the reality of unemployment.


The more I have heard, the more convinced I have become that the present Government do not deserve one penny of the £10 million that they ask for first in this motion. Who is to say that the £30 million, to which that sum may be raised, will be the limit? As far as I can gather from the documents that I have read in the last few months, the realistic estimate of the cost of the Government's proposals is not £10 million but £15 million. If the Government are out by 50 per cent. now, who is to say that their £30 million estimate is not out by 50 per cent., in addition?
If the Government are prepared to forward £100,000 for the first two years for the expenses of the chairman and vice-chairman. I fail to see why they think that they will be able to cut that money down to £40,000 after those first two years. At a time when the world does not seem to be seeing the end of inflation—heaven knows, this country is not—it seems incredible that they could be so foolhardy as to reduce, three or four years ahead, a sum that they are putting forward now.
Another matter which I do not think has been mentioned is the layer upon layer of bureaucratic decisions that are contained in the machinery that the Secretary of State is proposing in order to passify some of the organisations that have raised objections to the Bill. The extra burden of the process that the Secretary of State has proposed is surely not included in the Money Resolution that we are discussing tonight.
The Secretary of State has talked of bringing in the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. I wonder when there will be an extra foray to the House for more money to enable it to pursue the aims of the Bill.
When we deal with the extra power of the Money Resolution, which is not—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have raised this matter with you before. The hon. Lady has admitted twice that the point that she is about to discuss is not in the Money Resolution. Sir, you, like I, have been here long enough to know that the Chair always insists that one must be careful to go no wider than—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need to inform the Chair of its duties or knowledge. The financial provisions of the Bill cannot be considered in Committee unless the necessary expenditures have been authorised. We are discussing the Money Resolution, which is, as the hon. Gentleman has said, narrow. However, arguments can be advanced on the question whether the money is sufficient.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think that you could have heard the hon. Lady say, on two separate occasions, that the matter she wanted to discuss was not covered by the Money Resolution. If that is so, surely she must, of her own volition, rule herself out of order. That is the only point I am making. The hon. Lady has said that the matter she is raising and pressing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I never heard the hon. Lady say such a thing.

Mr. John Peyton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to pay a small tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), because she is being rebuked from a very wrong source. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), who has again and again strayed way beyond the rules of order, is hardly the one to invoke your assistance in rebuking my hon. Friend.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman has now raised with you a matter which cannot be in order, because he has referred to something that has happened and which has nothing to do with the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair suggests that the debate continues on the Money Resolution.

Mrs. Chalker: If the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) had listened more carefully he would have heard that although the matters are not expressly written into the Money Resolution, as we cannot discuss them in Committee unless the Resolution is passed tonight, as the Chair has said. I think it only right that they should be raised on the Floor of the House. Had the hon. Gentleman listened to the debate


he would have realised how concerned hon. Members are about this matter. If the Bill becomes law it will require further levies to be paid by port owners for those dock workers who do not have work. If the owners go bankrupt, but the levies still have to be paid, will not the Government be responsible for the payment? Will it not be this legislation that will require that the levies be paid? They are currently at the rate of 10 per cent. in Liverpool.
We know that investment has already been driven away from firms that will not risk coming within the terms of the Bill. How much greater will be the cost? The legislation is surely undercosted by 50 per cent. We want to know the precise amount of undercosting. We need the figures, but we have never been given them.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw: This is a sad day, because at this time we should be debating measures to save expenditure, not increase it. Although the £30 million provided for in the Money Resolution is a small amount by comparison with other Government expenditure, the figures are, nevertheless, highly significant. The Bill will mean higher expenditure for port employers, and the increased costs will be passed on. The Money Resolution deals with increased costs, which the consumer must ultimately pay.
Even those of us without ports in our constituencies recognise that the agonising feature of the Bill is the effect it will have on industrial costs. The Government should be introducing only that legislation which will make some contribution to the attack on inflation. I oppose the Money Resolution as I opposed the Bill—in a spirit of genuine anger. This is "Jonesgeld" paid for in "counterfoot" money, and the Government should be ashamed of seeking the approval of the House for such an absurd measure.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: Although I seek to take part in the debate I should explain that Banbury has no docks. It has an agreeable canal, but it has no docks. However, having listened to the remarkable speeches of my hon. Friends I am encouraged to question the Money

Resolution. It says that for the purposes of the Act
it is expedient to authorise…payments in respect of the chairman and vice chairman of the Board by way of salaries".
That one accepts, but then it refers to "fees". Why would the chairman need both a salary and fees? It also refers to "allowances". We accept that, because there must, of course, be cars, flats in London, and all the usual things that go on with these chairmen, such as trips to Brussels in special jet aircraft.
Then comes the reference to "pensions". Surely the chairman and vice-chairman will be pensioners, anyhow. The next item is "gratuities". What sort of a tip will these people get? Are we expected to pass a Money Resolution providing that these well-paid pensioners, who are enjoying salaries, fees, allowances and pensions, are also to get tips? Cannot that part of the Resolution be withdrawn?
We are then asked to approve the provision that these people should receive compensation upon leaving office. I can understand that this will be important. My right hon. Friend will, before long, be Prime Minister, and I hope that the Act will then be repealed. The chairman would then need compensation. Will the Minister clear up the questions surrounding this curious wording?

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rees: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), I rise both in sorrow and in anger. I rise in anger at the rather squalid compact that we have debated and voted upon, and in sorrow at the financial consequences that have been presented to us. Various items are contained in the motion, and one of them—I say this advisedly, in case the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), who represents his constituency so eloquently, should take me to task—relates to the
salaries, fees, allowances, pensions and gratuities, and compensation on leaving office
for the board that is to be established.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) has perceptively pointed out that the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum at the front of


the Bill provides that the total sums will amount to
approximately £100,000 during the first two years, after which they should not exceed £40,000.
This is a curious reversal of roles. I suggest that on this occasion severance payments should be paid in advance to members of the Board, bearing in mind that when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is presiding over our destinies in a few months' time, as she assuredly will be, the chopper will fall swiftly, albeit painfully, for those so ill-advised as to accept offers of employment from the Secretary of State.
There are other more serious matters to be debated. I note that the Board's capital debt is not to exceed £10 million, subject to an increase up to £30 million, by Order. Apparently we are to underwrite the Board's liabilities up to £10 million, and then, perhaps, up to £30 million. But in the same breath we are told that the Board's expenses will be met principally by levies on dock employers. There is a certain inconsistency, which may be resolved at a later stage. Apparently the loans are to finance the current level of voluntary severance payment, but that does not apply to members of the Board, their payments being met in a different way.
Are severance payments to be made to existing registered dock workers or to those who will be taken on the register when non-scheme ports are brought within the scheme? Are they to be made to those working in container depots whose jobs may be threatened by the Bill? I hope that we shall have some elucidation. It would be taken very amiss in Dover, which is a non-scheme port, if it were necessary to finance severance payments to dock workers in Liverpool, for example, or the Port of London. These are matters about which the right hon. Gentleman should have more to say.
Finally, we come to the Board's expenses, which will be met partly by levies on dock employers. Who in the port of Dover, for instance—I have a particular interest in Dover—will be regarded as dock employers for the purposes of the Bill? Will it be the Dover Harbour Board or the Dover Stevedoring Com-

pany? What kind of liabilities are we loading on to them? Is it right that they should be forced to underwrite the past activities, perhaps even the past follies, of other ports which, to their misfortune, have been embraced by the Scheme hitherto? My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) reminded us of rather shameful episode in our country's past when we were raising Danegeid for the Danish invaders. With a happy turn of phrase, my hon. Friend transmuted it into "Jonesgeld".
I believe that this country will look back with shame on this little legislative episode. But it will reserve its deepest contempt for the Secretary of State for Employment who, as a Back Bencher, made his reputation as a stern and unbending defender of the liberties of minorities. The right hon. Gentleman owes it to the House—and, if not, the Chief Secretary, who now reposes beside him, owes it to us—to explain what is comprised in the "Jonesgeld" of the Money Resolution.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: This debate reflects nothing but discredit on the Government Front Bench. On the Government Front Bench the Secretary of State for Employment is now flanked by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—the man whose principal responsibility to the House is the scrutiny of public expenditure, and the Chief Secretary is now flanked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who did not even do the House the courtesy of being present a little earlier when we were discussing a proposal to increase the public sector borrowing requirement.
The fact that this vitally important debate is taking place at this hour of night, and that the initial sum of £10 million stands to be increased to £20 million or £30 million, amount to a massive indictment of the financial rectitude of the Government. It is time the House was treated with greater courtesy by the Government Front Bench. It is time that measures of this kind were not debated late at night, and certainly not against the background of the Chief Secretary's sniggers. It is time that the Government Front Bench devoted itself to curtailing public expenditure rather than to increasing it in this regrettable way.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. James Prior: I wish to wind up this short debate in which a number of my hon. Friends have made some potent points.
Will the Minister give us details of the salaries of the chairman and vice-chairman of the Board? That information would be of considerable interest to the House. Will he explain why, even before the Board is set up, we are considering a motion to pay compensation to people on leaving office? May we be told why that part of the Money Resolution is necessary at this stage?
Why do the Government think that this money will be needed? I thought that one great purpose of extending the scheme was to provide more jobs for dockers and to replace those workers who drift away to jobs in cold stores and warehouses, but the commitment is to rise from a figure of £10 million to one of £30 million. About £2½ million of that sum has already been spent. Therefore, there remains about £7½ million on which to draw.
The Dock Labour Board considers that there will be about 3,000 redundancies in the coming year. At a payment of £5,250 for each worker, the total will reach a figure of £15 million. Indeed, since a figure of £2½ million has already been spent, why is not a greater sum than £10 million now being sought?
What is the anticipated run-down figure in the dock industry this year? Many dockers are under the impression that there is to be no further run-down of dockers in the industry. It would be useful for the House to be told those figures.
We now come to the end of a pretty discreditable performance by the House of Commons. I am glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer is here to see not only the amount of money being spent under the terms of this resolution but also the extra costs that the Bill will add to industry and the housewives of this country. He does not sit on the Front Bench very often. I hope he now realises what some of his hon. and right hon. Friends are doing to destroy his policies.

11.26 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): I shall

gladly seek to give the House what information I can in the time available.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said about the difficulty in obtaining information from the existing Scheme. It is for that reason we have included in Schedule 1 special provisions requiring the Board to keep accounts and make information available. If the hon. Member looks at Schedule 1, he will see that among the information which has to be included in the Board's report is the remuneration of its members for their services. There will be less reason to complain on those grounds if the schedule goes through unamended.
There are three bands of additional cost which can fall to the Exchequer under the Bill. The first is the salaries of the new chairman and vice-chairman of the Board. The salaries of the present part-time chairman and vice-chairman are £3,500 and £2,000, respectively. They are met by the industry through the levy imposed by the present Dock Labour Scheme. The Bill will give the Board wider powers to look at work outside the present scope of the negotiating arrangements for the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry and we felt it right to provide for the possibility of payment of the chairman and vice-chairman from public funds. They will probably need to be full-time appointments and therefore should be paid rather more than the present chairman and vice-chairman, but no rates have yet been determined.

Mr. Ridley: We would like to know how much these two new sinecures are to be worth. We shall have to vote the money—and justify it to the taxpayers—for these salaries. What do the Government intend to pay these people.

Mr. Booth: I object to the term "sinecure". Additional duties are required of the chairman and the vice-chairman under the Bill. It is right that we should consider higher salaries than those received by the present chairman and vice-chairman.
The figures calculated by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury cannot be correct, because there are additional costs to be met out of the total amount in the resolution. These costs


include six additional staff in my Department to handle and advise on recommendations for classification and the making of Orders. Another cost will be the grants paid towards the expenses of the Board in carrying out its functions under the Bill in connection with the classification of work. All these costs have to be met within the total sum contained in the Money Resolution.
I have also been asked about the amount spent by way of levy for severance. The figures of the hon. Lady the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) embraced not only severance pay but the levies for administration and pensions. The amount attributable to the levy for severance is 4 per cent.

Mr. Gow: As the chairman and the other members of the Board are appointed by the Secretary of State, is the Minister telling the House that he does not know what salaries he is proposing to offer these gentlemen?

Mr. Booth: I am telling the House that no salaries have yet been determined for these gentlemen. What we have determined and put in the Money Resolution is the total sum that will be required

for all the purposes I have described to the House under those three headings.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that they will not be superannuated union officials?

Mr. Booth: It is most unlikely that they will have union connections, as special provision is made under the Act that union representatives and employers' representatives shall serve on the National Dock Labour Board. It is, therefore, unlikely that the chairman and vice-chairman will have a direct interest in that aspect of the Board's activities. There are three bands of expenditure that have to be covered by that one sum.
I have also been asked to explain the provision of loans to the Board to meet the cost of voluntary severance payments—

It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business):—

The House divided: Ayes 30, Noes 295.

Division No. 60.]
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Cant, R. B.
Duffy, A. E. P.


Allaun, Frank
Carmichael, Neil
Dunn, James A.


Anderson, Donald
Carter, Ray
Dunnett, Jack


Archer, Peter
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Armstrong, Ernest
Cartwright, John
Eadie, Alex


Ashley, Jack
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Edge, Geoff


Ashton, Joe
Clemitson, Ivor
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Atkinson, Norman
Cohen, Stanley
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Coleman, Donald
English, Michael


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Ennals, David


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Concannon, J. D.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Bates, Alf
Conlan, Bernard
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Bean, R. E.
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Evans, John (Newton)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Corbett, Robin
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Faulds, Andrew


Bidwell, Sydney
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Bishop, E. S.
Crawshaw, Richard
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cronin, John
Flannery, Martin


Boardman, H.
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Booth, Albert
Cryer, Bob
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Ford, Ben


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Dalyell, Tam
Forrester, John


Bradley, Tom
Davidson, Arthur
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Freeson, Reginald


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Deakins, Eric
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
George, Bruce


Buchan, Norman
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Gilbert, Dr John


Buchanan, Richard
Delargy, Hugh
Ginsburg, David


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Golding, John


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Dempsey, James
Gould, Bryan


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Doig, Peter
Gourley, Harry


Campbell, Ian
Dormand, J. D.
Graham, Ted


Canavan, Dennis
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Grant, George (Morpeth)




Grant, John (Islington C)
Magee, Bryan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Grocott, Bruce
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mahon, Simon
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hardy, Peter
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marks, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Marquand, David
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Sillars, James


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Silverman, Julius


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Skinner, Dennis


Heffer, Eric S.
Maynard, Miss Joan
Small, William


Hooley, Frank
Meacher, Michael
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Horam, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Snape, Peter


Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Mendelson, John
Spearing, Nigel


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Mikardo, Ian
Spriggs, Leslie


Huckfield, Les
Millan, Bruce
Stallard, A. W.


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Stoddart, David


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Molloy, William
Strang, Gavin


Hunter, Adam
Moonman, Eric
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshawe)
Swain, Thomas


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Moyle, Roland
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Janner, Greville
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Newens, Stanley
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Noble, Mike
Tierney, Sydney


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Oakes, Gordon
Tinn, James


John, Brynmor
Ogden, Eric
Tomlinson, John


Johnson, James (Hull West)
O'Halloran, Michael
Tomney, Frank


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Torney, Tom


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Orbach, Maurice
Tuck, Raphael


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Urwin, T. W.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ovenden, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Judd, Frank
Owen, Dr David
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Kaufman, Gerald
Padley, Walter
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Kelley, Richard
Palmer, Arthur
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Kerr, Russell
Park, George
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Parker, John
Ward, Michael


Kinnock, Neil
Parry, Robert
Watkins, David


Lamborn, Harry
Pavitt, Laurie
Watkinson, John


Lamond, James
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Weetch, Ken


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Pendry, Tom
Weitzman, David


Leadbitter, Ted
Perry, Ernest
Wellbeloved, James


Lee, John
Phipps, Dr Colin
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Lester, Miss Joan (Eton and Slough)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
White, James (Pollok)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Prescott, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Whitlock, William


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, William (Rugby)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Lipton, Marcus
Radice, Giles
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Litterick, Tom
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Loyden, Eddie
Richardson, Miss Jo
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Luard, Evan
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


McCartney, Hugh
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McElhone, Frank
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Woodall, Alec


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rooker, J. W.
Woof, Robert


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Roper, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Mackenzie, Gregor
Rose, Paul B.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Mackintosh, John P.
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)



Maclennan, Robert
Rowlands, Ted
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Sandelson, Neville
Mr. James Hamilton and


McNamara, Kevin
Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Madden, Max
Selby, Harry





NOES


Adley, Robert
Biffen, John
Buck, Antony


Aitken, Jonathan
Biggs-Davison, John
Budgen, Nick


Alison, Michael
Blaker, Peter
Bulmer, Esmond


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Body, Richard
Burden, F. A.


Arnold. Tom
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bottomley, Peter
Carlisle, Mark


Awdry, Daniel
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Carson, John


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Baker, Kenneth
Braine, Sir Bernard
Channon, Paul


Banks, Robert
Brittan, Leon
Churchill, W. S.


Bell, Ronald
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Brotherton, Michael
Clark, William (Croydon S)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Benyon, W.
Bryan, Sir Paul
Clegg, Walter


Berry, Hon Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Cockcroft, John







Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Cope, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cordle, John H.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Reid, George


Cormack, Patrick
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Corrie, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Costain, A. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Crawford, Douglas
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Critchley, Julian
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian


Crouch, David
Kilfedder, James
Rifkind, Malcolm


Crowder, F. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kirk, Peter
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Drayson, Burnaby
Knight, Mrs Jill
Ross, William (Londonderry)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Knox, David
Rossl, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dunlop, John
Lamont, Norman
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Durant, Tony
Lane, David
Royle, Sir Anthony


Dykes, Hugh
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sainsbury, Tim


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lawrence, Ivan
Scott, Nicholas


Elliott, Sir William
Lawson, Nigel
Scott-Hopkins, James


Emery, Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Lloyd, Ian
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Eyre, Reginald
Loveridge, John
Shepherd, Colin


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Luce, Richard
Shersby, Michael


Fairgrieve, Russell
MacCormick, Iain
Silvester, Fred


Farr, John
McCrindle, Robert
Sims, Roger


Fell, Anthony
McCusker, H.
Sinclair, Sir George


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Neil
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
MacGregor, John
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Speed, Keith


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Spence, John


Fox, Marcus
Madal, David
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fry, Peter
Marten, Neil
Sproat, Iain


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Mates, Michael
Stainton, Keith


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mather, Carol
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Maude, Angus
Stanley, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mawby, Ray
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mayhew, Patrick
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Goodhart, Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stokes, John


Goodhew, Victor
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Goodlad, Alastair
Mills, Peter
Tapsell, Peter


Gorst, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Moate, Roger
Tebbit, Norman


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Molyneaux, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gray, Hamish
Monro, Hector
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Griffiths, Eldon
Montgomery, Fergus
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Thompson, George


Grist, Ian
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Grylls, Michael
Morgan, Geraint
Townsend, Cyril D


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Trotter, Neville


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hannam, John
Mudd, David
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neave, Airey
Viggers, Peter


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Nelson, Anthony
Wakeham, John


Hastings, Stephen
Neubert, Michael
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Havers, Sir Michael
Newton, Tony
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Hawkins, Paul
Normanton, Tom
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Hayhoe, Barney
Nott, John
Wall, Patrick


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Onslow, Cranley
Walters, Dennis


Henderson, Douglas
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Warren, Kenneth


Hicks Robert
Osborn, John
Watt, Hamish


Higgins, Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow W)
Weatherill, Bernard


Holland, Philip
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Wells, John


Hooson, Emlyn
Paisley, Rev Ian
Welsh, Andrew


Hordern, Peter
Pattie, Geoffrey
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Penhaligon, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Howell, David (Guildford)
Percival, Ian
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Pink, R. Bonner
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Hunt, John
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Hurd, Douglas
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Younger, Hon George


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, Rt Hon James



Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


James, David
Raison, Timothy
Mr. Cecil Parkinson and


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Rathbone, Tim
Mr. Spencer Le Merchant.


Jessel, Toby
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to reconstitute the National Dock Labour Board and make further provision for regulating the allocation and performance of the work of cargo-handling in and about the ports of Great Britain, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increased administrative expenses of the Secretary of State which are attributable to provisions of that Act and of any sums required by him—

(i) for making loans to the Board up to a maximum amount outstanding at any one time by way of principal of £10 million or such higher amount not exceeding £30 million as may be specified by order;
(ii) for making grants to the Board towards their expenses in pursuance of provisions of the Act requiring them to make reports and recommendations to the Secretary of State; and
(iii) for making payments to and in respect of the chairman and vice chairman of the Board by way of salaries, fees, allowances, pensions and gratuities, and compensation on leaving office; and


(b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by the Secretary of State by way of repayment of loans made by him to the Board or its predecessor, and interest thereon.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

HOUSING (WALSALL)

11.44 p.m.

Mr. Bruce George: It is probably unusual for Members of Parliament from adjacent constituencies and within the same local authority to be successful in the same week in the Ballot for Adjournment debates. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) has chosen a subject in which he has become deeply concerned—prison conditions of unconvicted remandees. I have chosen a subject of deep concern to me and the majority of my constituents and the people of Walsall in general.
The shortage of housing in Walsall is acute. I cannot escape the conclusion that as a nation we have failed to provide

adequate accommodation for our citizens. The size of my weekly surgery is a testimony to the town's housing crisis. I share the feelings of people visiting me—feelings of despair, as literally dozens of people each week tell me their housing problems.
In many cases there is little I am able to do. Many people are reduced to tears, telling me stories of their overcrowded accommodation and the dilapidated accommodation in which they live. In many cases there is little opportunity for them to get out in the immediate future.
We must ensure the construction of the right number of dwellings, in the right place, at the right time, the right price, and of the right size and type. So far, I regret that we have failed.
Both the Labour Government and our Labour council in Walsall have given a very high priority to housing. We share a common desire for a rapid increase in the construction of all types of housing and the Government are endeavouring to improve the standard of the existing housing stock. I am well aware of the financial constraints under which both central Government and local governments are operating.
I appreciate too that there are other urban areas with serious housing problems, but I contend that my area has a more serious problem than most, and I hope that I can convince the Minister that it deserves special treatment.
Walsall is in the heart of the industrial Midlands—a town of 250,000, but the relevant indices belie the myth of prosperity. The average income is below the national average. There are many areas of multiple deprivation, and bad housing is usually a function of low income.
About 20 per cent. of the housing stock in the old county borough of Walsall is pre-1918, which means that many houses are structurally defective and lacking in basic amenities. That there is a desperate housing need is apparent to all but, apparently, the inspector who conducted a public inquiry in 1974 into the proposal by Walsall to acquire land at Bloxwich.
In rejecting Walsall's application, he said:
Of course they have a housing need but its total size is open to serious question because


of the doubt cast on their estimates for the old County Borough in respect of existing deficiency and new household formation, which together form the bulk of its need.
I refute this entirely. If anything, the need was understated at the inquiry. At present, there are 7,646 applicants on the housing register, and if nothing else comes out of this debate I hope the Minister will accept the figures agreed at the public inquiry into structure plans of the West Midlands conurbation as the basis for the Department's calculations.
The council is starting to make an in-road into the accumulated deficiencies of bygone years, after the disastrous years of the last Tory Council, when municipal house building virtually ceased. Now, at last, we have some movement and there is hope for the thousands of people on our waiting list.
The target of the local authority is 1,500 houses per annum. Last year, we made 1,000 starts, and we hope that this year the figure will be even higher. But the magnitude of the task facing the council is staggering.
A recent estimate showed that in the next decade, from 1976 to 1986, there will be a need for between 14,000 and 15,000 dwellings—a enormous figure. To build that number will require great co-operation between Government, local government, developers and all those concerned. We have in Walsall a go-ahead council. It needs all the assistance that the Department of the Environment and, indeed, the Treasury can provide.
I shall not only dwell on the need for a dynamic house building programme; I shall deal also with our needs and the shortfalls in respect of our modernisation programmes. In Walsall, we have about 40,000 council houses. Of these, 13,000 were constructed before 1939. About 12,000 are in need of modernisation in the foreseeable future. All have outside toilets, and 5,000 have inadequate wiring. At the present rate of modernisation, of about 400 houses a year, the pre-war houses will be modernised by the year 2006. It is estimated by the local authority that in 10 years half of its stock will require modernisation. It is a vicious circle. By the time the pre-war houses are completed—about the year 2000—the post-war houses will be obsolete, too, and the

greater the delay in modernising our existing stock, obviously the greater cost when the job is done. The demand for modernisation and house repairs is enormous.
The inability of the council to cope with the enormity of this task inspires amongst council house tenants disenchantment, bitterness, resentment and alienation. In some areas like Coalpool, Harden, Pleck, Palfrey, Caldmore and Darlaston, I am inundated with complaints. However active the council is, there are limits on what it can do. Therefore, many people are left with little hope that these basic tasks will be completed by the local authority. In my constituency of Walsall, South, 22 per cent of all households lack hot water, a bath and/or an inside toilet. In Darlaston, the figure is 28 per cent. In St. Matthews ward, it is 33 per cent.—a figure that we must all condemn.
The Government allocation of £3 million for next year is, in reality, no improvement on the previous allocation of £2 million, because of inflation and because, now, of the amalgamation of the modernisation and repairs element in the Section 105 grant. But the basic problem is that in the past Walsall did not spend heavily enough, so that the base from which the cost limits is calculated is too low. I argue that the allocation should be based on our undoubted need and not on historic costs, and I hope that this will be borne in mind by the Department when the next calculation is made.
The majority of people on the council waiting list are seeking to escape from their present inadequate housing, and if we can resuscitate older properties it will clearly diminish the need for new houses. I welcome the Government's encouragement for the rehabilitation of old properties.
In the past, in my area and in others, redevelopment was often insensitive and, in some cases, unnecessary. Communities were broken up. In Walsall, the population is not mobile, because of a number of factors—the age of the population, its low income, and its sense of community. Walsall is made up of a large number of smaller communities. Many people resist resettlement in "faraway" places like Tamworth and Telford. In some cases, it might be difficult to relocate them even on the periphery of the town.
A recent survey showed that 42 per cent. of the people on the approved list wanted to remain in the older parts, near the town centre. In my view, much more encouragement must therefore be given to resettling families in the areas in which they are presently living, and this requires much speedier compulsory purchase orders and much more cash to aid people who wish to modernise.
A recent report of the National Community Development Project was critical of the GIA programme, and our own experience in Walsall has tended to confirm much of this analysis. I very much hope that housing action areas are not "old policies in new clothing". None, regrettably, has been declared in Walsall. The old GIA had some success, but it had fatal defects. One was its lack of compulsory powers. A further defect was that it did not help those in most need—poorer families unable to raise their proportion of the expenditure.
In my constituency there are many contenders for designation as housing action areas—Darlaston, Pleck, Palfrey and Chuckery, for example. Darlaston is a classic example of a town that was formerly wealthy. It is wealthy now, in terms of money created by its factories, but a wander around the town will give an impression not of affluence but of poverty. It has many old houses, both council and private, which desperately need modernisation. The town centre is run down. It has many of the attributes of a ghost town.
Much must be done by central and local government and by private developers to breathe new life into such decaying areas. There are many such areas in the Black Country. I hope that something can be done to assist this area to achieve the level of attainment which so far it has lacked.
Housing associations have, regrettably, so far had little impact on Walsall. There are six in the town, of which one is community-based. In 1975–76 it is estimated that 149 dwellings will come into use as a result of the work of these associations, and that the figure for the following year will be 234. Housing associations can play a vital role in solving our housing problems and I hope that far more will be set up in Walsall. I regret that a ceiling has been placed on

capital expenditure, because housing associations have problems. They can provide specialist accommodation, and I hope that the time will come when there will be more of them in the town and they will play a much more active role.
In Walsall, as in the country as a whole, we must make much better use of the existing housing stock. There is a scandal of under-occupation. Much more must be done to encourage older people to move to smaller houses. Obviously, there must be no compulsion, but the council could take much of the worry away from old people in moving, and this would release accommodation for needy families.
There must be real measures to combat the growing number of empty properties. It is an affront to the homeless to see large numbers of houses remaining empty in my town. I welcome moves by the local authority and one of the housing associations to purchase 33 flats that have remained unfinished for almost a year at Highgate, in Walsall. If they were bought with the assistance of central Government it would take 100 people off the council waiting list.
I congratulate central Government and my local authority for their joint ventures to combat an unsatisfactory housing situation, despite the many obstacles. It requires great effort at all levels by Government, private developers, housing associations and the population as a whole. It is to my regret that private house building in the town is in decline. Much more must be done to encourage it to grow.
To help achieve the targets, the Government can do more—although I must add that there is a good relationship between central Government and my authority. We deserve a bigger slice of the cake: I hope I have produced evidence for that.
Second, I hope that the Department will give a sympathetic hearing to the problems of land shortage, which is acute in Walsall. It is essential to acquire land and a sympathetic hearing from the Government will be to our advantage. I hope that the Government will have a new look at expenditure on drainage, which is seriously impeding house building in Walsall. I hope, too, that we shall


have an early decision on the West Midlands conurbation structure plan.
Finally, on behalf of myself and the local authority, I extend an invitation to the Minister to visit Walsall, and not just for a courtesy visit. I hope that he will consider a working visit to see for himself some of the housing problems in the town, so that we shall see a steady improvement in achieving the aim of us all—providing the citizens of Walsall with adequate housing.

11.59 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) for the moving and forceful way in which he raised what is a great problem in his area. Housing is a great social problem.
I shall deal with some of the particular matters my hon. Friend raised, but first I should like to say something about the Government's general approach. Our housing policy is simply stated. It is to give the opportunity for adequate housing to all our people. That is why, despite the economic difficulties through which we are passing, this Government have devoted an increasing share of resources to housing.
Last year well over 300,000 new houses were completed. Nationally we have a crude surplus of homes over households. Yet the stark fact is that in many areas there are desperate housing problems. My hon. Friend gave some alarming percentages of homes in his constituency that lack basic amenities. Homelessness and long waiting lists are a constant reminder of how much still remains to be done. I assure my hon. Friend that we are concerned and in no way complacent about that.
The Government will continue to try to improve the rate of new building in both the public and the private sector. There are no restrictions on new house building by local authorities, because we believe increased provision has become necessary.
The Government have been encouraged by the healthy improvement in the numbers of new dwellings provided in the public sector in the last two years. Over the country as a whole, 1975 saw a big increase in the number of new starts com-

pared to 1974—they have nearly doubled, in fact—and 1974 itself showed a heartening improvement over the previous year.
We are heartened by this trend, but not content. We are anxious that once dwellings are started they should be made ready for occupation more quickly than in the past, and we expect local authorities and builders to see what can be done to bring this about.
The Government have also said frequently over recent months that there is scope for much better use of the existing stock. There are still too many dwellings remaining empty for long periods and too many large properties occupied by single people and couples who would be willing to move if given suitable alternative accommodation. Councils should also be carrying out conversions of their existing stock wherever possible as a useful means of achieving a better match of dwellings to the needs of households. However, the main task is still to build new dwellings.
There is a lot of new building coming forward in the pipeline, in the early planning stages. The Government are anxious to speed up the planning of new developments and have given guidance to local authorities on the various ways that can be examined of achieving this.
The private sector is also showing encouraging signs, with new starts nearly 40 per cent. higher than last year, although these are not yet coming forward as completed dwellings. We hope to see progress in that sector.
The housing association movement, to which my hon. Friend referred, is now making the sort of contribution we had in mind following the 1974 Act. I take note of my hon. Friend's comments on the situation in his area.
However, it is not enough for the total picture on new building to be improving. It is important to ensure that the right types of houses are being built where they are really needed. This Government are particularly anxious, in the present economic climate, to ensure that scarce resources are applied to match the priorities. This means identifying where the needs exist and as far as possible removing any constraints that might stand in the way of what is required.
My hon. Friend raised the problem of available land in Walsall. I turn from the general picture to housebuilding in the West Midlands, where progress has been encouraging. In fact, 1975 has been the best year for some time, to such an extent that the total of public sector approvals is the highest since 1968. The local authorities in the region are to be congratulated on their efforts.
Walsall has made a significant contribution to the progress of the past year. Its new public sector starts in 1975 were about 1,000, compared to 500 achieved by the old county borough and Aldridge Brownhills UDC in 1973. It also hopes further to increase this level, to at least 1,500 new dwellings this year, with the intention of maintaining similar levels in subsequent years.
The housing corporation also sees Walsall as one of its priority areas, and is planning to play its part to the full during the coming year in helping to meet the town's most pressing needs. We recognise the pressing housing needs of Walsall. What my hon. Friend has said clearly indicates the scale of Walsall's continuing demand for additional new house building and as a prudent authority it now rightly seeks to plan for this.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction is currently making a series of visits to local authorities in order to find out what problems they are meeting in their programmes. He had discussions with Walsall, together with the other West Midland metropolitan authorities, in December last year. At that meeting Walsall indicated difficulties with regard to land for new housing.
At the public inquiry into applications on a site north of Bloxwich the inspector reached some general conclusions on the extent of this need and he added that it should be investigated further. This investigation has now taken place, in the context of the examination in public of the Walsall and other structure plans last year. The report of the panel following that examination will, I understand, be submitted to my right hon. Friend very shortly. I expect it to make clear recommendations on the extent of the housing need arising in Walsall as well as on the general locations for new housing development in the former

county borough, and I hope that proposed modifications will be published in the summer.
My right hon. Friend will also publish proposed modifications to the Staffordshire Structure Plan as soon as possible, hopefully in the next three months. The Staffordshire plan will decide the general location of development in South Staffordshire and in Aldridge Brownhills, which is now Part of Walsall borough.
The final assessment of need will therefore be made in the proper "strategic" context. I shall ensure in those decisions that the points made so forcefully by my hon. Friend are taken into account.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Blox-wich site. I cannot comment further on the merits of the site that was the subject of an inquiry without running the risk of prejudicing any subsequent application, as it is, of course, open to the appellant to make a fresh application to develop the land in the light of the latest information available.
It is not enough, however, to identify suitable development land. It is, of course, essential that the necessary infrastructure should be provided at the right time, and I am aware that this is an important issue in Walsall. This was discussed with my hon. Friend on his visit to the region in December—a visit to which I have already referred. Many of the various alternative sites that are being considered in the context of Walsall's overall housing needs do, I know, present some difficulties in terms of sewage disposal capacity, and the River Tame is grossly polluted.
The Severn/Trent Water Authority is aware of these problems, and the Department holds regular discussions with it to ensure that it is kept up to date with Walsall's needs. Indeed, the former Upper Tame Main Drainage Board had started on a 10-year programme of major extension and modernisation, involving five of its works in the area. This, of course, is now the responsibility of the water authority. The first of these works, capable of serving an additional 20,000 people, was opened at Goscote in 1975. On the other hand, I am told that additional works at the Walsall Road and Brockhurst Treatment Works will not be completed until 1980 and 1981, respectively.
I can only repeat that we shall be taking all these considerations into account in reaching decisions on the structure plans. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be announcing our proposals as quickly as possible in view of Walsall's urgent housing situation.
I come now to one or two other points that my hon. Friend raised. Four general improvement areas have been declared, including 1,350 dwellings, and the council is considering the position on housing action areas.
The Section 105 allocation for the improvement of council houses in 1975–76 was £2 million, compared with a bid of £2·75 million. Most of the allocation has been taken up by existing commitments. The position will be improved in 1976–77, with an allocation of £3 million, against a bid of £3·3 million. This should enable the council to proceed with some new schemes involving the provision of missing amenities and conversions to produce housing gain. Walsall estimates that

about 9,000 council-owned dwellings lack at least one standard amenity.
I fully understand the council's concern about this situation, but I can only say that it involves one of the many difficult decisions on priorities that are called for during the present necessary restriction of expenditure. However, I take note of my hon. Friend's comments on the need for more expenditure on maintenance and repair. We want to channel resources where the need is greatest.
My hon. Friend concluded by asking whether my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction or myself would be prepared to visit the town to discuss its problems. If he will get in touch with me on this matter—I know that he will—I hope that a suitable occasion can be found for me to visit his constituency and consider the problems that it faces.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Twelve o'clock.